Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER (TEMPERATURE)

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Mr. Speaker, may I call your attention to the fact that the temperature of this Chamber is 53 degrees, which is five degrees below the temperature which is necessary to maintain health? Can we have anything done to maintain the temperature of this Chamber at a standard which is something more suitable for human habitation?

Mr. Speaker: Question Time has not arrived yet. I have not yet called the House to Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Retail Businesses

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many new branches have been opened since September, 1939, by multiple and chain stores and co-operative societies; and how many small individual businesses have been closed during that period?

Mr. Doland: asked the President of the Board of Trade what number of applications have been received from members of His Majesty's Forces overseas and members of the Merchant Navy to have their names added to the register of traders who have withdrawn from retail trade since the war began; and how many have made application by proxy?

Major Petherick: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many shops in the United Kingdom owned by British subjects have been closed down since the beginning of the war; how many licences have been granted to aliens to

open shops since the same date; and how many of these aliens are of enemy origin?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): For figures of the number of licences granted for new shops, according to their different categories, between 1st January, 1942, when the Location of Retail Businesses Order came into force, and June 30th, 1943, I would refer my hon. Friends to my reply to a Question on this subject on the 21st September. Not more than 30 licences were issued to aliens, and the number granted to aliens of enemy origin must, therefore, have been very small. I regret that figures for the period before the Location of Retail Businesses Order came into force are not available. So far 12,000 traders have applied for inclusion on the Register of Withdrawing Traders. To extract figures showing how many applications have been made by persons called up for National Service, and how many by proxy, would entail an expenditure of time and effort, which, with the small staff available for this work, I could not at present justify.

Sir A. Southby: May I ask my right hon. Friend what saving of man-power and woman-power has been effected by the closing of small businesses and how much this has been offset by the necessity for providing extra staffs for the cooperative societies and multiple chain stores to enable them to cope with the extra business which they have taken from the small trader?

Mr. Dalton: I think my hon. and gallant friend has not read the answer.

Sir A. Southby: On a point of Order. May I be informed how I can read an answer which has not yet been given to a question which I have only just asked?

Mr. Dalton: I am only anxious to give information in the most convenient way. On 21st September I gave an answer, which was printed in Hansard, which perhaps my hon. and gallant friend sometimes peruses, and in that answer I stated that of the 2,969 licences granted to new shops 2,796 were for individual traders— the vast majority—122 to multiples, 34 to co-operative societies, 11 to variety chain stores and 6 to departmental chain stores. That shows that the observations


he made in the latter part of his supplementary question is completely out of focus and wrong. With regard to the saving of man-power, it has been very considerable, but that is a question concerning the Minister of Labour, who would be better able to give information about that.

Major Petherick: Is not the telescoping of three Questions into one when they deal with completely different points really very confusing indeed? If that were not done the replies would be easier to understand.

Mr. Dalton: The answer is given in this form only with the permission of hon. Members, which is asked for and is normally given, in order to save time by the avoidance of repetition. I endeavour always to group only Questions which can be answered together for the convenience of the House. If there is anything which my hon. and gallant Friend has put which I have not answered I shall be glad to do so.

Mr. Doland: With regard to Question No. 9, I am sorry that the Minister cannot answer that categorically, but is he satisfied himself that sufficient is being done to draw the attention of those who are overseas to the fact that they can register in the manner he has stated?

Mr. Dalton: I have done my best to give full publicity to this matter. I have been in close contact with the National Chamber of Trade, with which my hon. and gallant Friend is associated, and I shall be glad to do anything further to give additional publicity.

Major Petherick: On a point of Order. As I am rather confused by the reply, may I have an answer to my Question?

Mr. De la Bère: Is not this telescoping technique very undesirable?

Major Petherick: Further to my point of Order, may I have a reply to my question?

Mr. Speaker: I have called the next Question.

International Discussions

Mr. Hammersley: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will undertake not to enter into any general commercial agreements which would jeopardise the planned develop-

ment of production and exchange of goods within the British Empire without first consulting Parliament?

Mr. Dalton: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that His Majesty's Government would not enter into any such agreements except after consultation with the Empire Governments concerned and there would, of course, be the usual opportunities for Debate in Parliament.

Mr. Hammersley: Is the House to understand from that reply that my right hon. Friend is fully persuaded of the importance of treating the Empire as one economic unit so that third parties might not allege that any internal arrangements entered into between parts of the British Empire is discriminate?

Mr. Dalton: His Majesty's Government are very anxious that there shall be a common Empire policy in trade and other matters, and with that end in view we are constantly in touch with the Dominion Governments.

Mr. Hammersley: The supplementary question which I put to my right hon. Friend was whether he was seized of the importance of treating the British Empire as one economic unit.

Mr. Dalton: In reply to that it would be necessary to make a long speech. The Dominions have, necessarily, autonomy with regard to tariffs and other matters, and they could not be, and should not be, interfered with, but we do consult with them more intimately than with any external bodies, and that applies to the Government of India.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not a fact that the delegation now in the United States with which Lord Keynes is associated have concluded provisional agreements on monetary and commercial matters with United States' representatives and that there has been no consultation whatever on these matters with the Dominion Governments?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, my hon. Friend is quite wrong. There have been informal and exploratory discussions proceeding in Washington for some time, but we are still at a very early stage in these discussions, and far from the conclusion even of a provisional agreement, and my hon. Friend therefore is wrong on that point. He is also wrong on the other point,


namely, that these discussions have taken place without consultation with the Dominions. There have been such consultations.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask my right hon. Friend categorically whether, in spite of what he has said, an agreement has not been reached which is called an experts' agreement, and that in the discussions the Dominions have not been considered at all? They have not been represented, and they are not at present represented, in the United States, they are not part of the delegation, and on the points raised in the discussions there have been no consultations with them whatever.

Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend has got hold of a wholly wrong version of what has been taking place. I repeat, and this has been stated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to other matters under discussion, that there have been officials representing not one but several Departments of His Majesty's Government in Washington discussing—I repeat, in an informal and exploratory fashion—with American officials problems of common concern. The Dominions Governments have been kept fully aware of what was going on, but at present we are very far indeed from the conclusion of any agreement, however provisional.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Is it not a fact that informal protests were made on behalf of the Australian Government with a possibility to their being represented in these informal and exploratory discussions and is it not a fact that those protests were rejected?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Would my right hon. Friend remind the hon. Members behind him, especially the hon. Member for Oxford City (Mr. Hogg), that 41 of them are pledged to interdependence of nations?

Mr. Hogg: And to Imperial unity.

British Films (Quota)

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the intention of the Government to remove the quota regulations regarding British films?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: How does the Minister reconcile that answer with the statement made recently by a Cabinet Minister when he said there should be open competition in the international film market, free from barriers such as quotas, monetary restrictions and other artificial nourishment for the home product; or is that statement just another of the many mistakes that were made by the Minister of Information when he was in America?

Mr. Dalton: I recognise the quotation, which came through the Press during the period when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Information was in the United States. My right hon. Friend informs me that he was quite incorrectly reported and that he said nothing of this kind at all.

Mr. Buchanan: Is he ever correctly reported?

Girls' Training Corps Uniforms (Coupons)

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of the issue of uniform under agreed conditions to officers and cadets of the girls' pre-service training units with a view to expanding the work of the Association and relieving present members of a heavy burden?

Mr. Dalton: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to similar Questions on this subject on Tuesday last.

Company law

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the President of the Board of Trade, whether with a view to safeguarding the interests of investors and the public interest, he will consider setting up a standing body to review the Companies Act, to keep all matters relating to limited companies under continuous review, and with power to initiate action with the Treasury's concurrence when it seems necessary?

Mr. Dalton: I Will ask the Commitee on Company Law, which is now sitting under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice Cohen, to consider this suggestion, for which I am much obliged to my hon. Friend.

Toys and Indoor Games (Prices)

. Mr. Francis Watt: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is


aware that the imposition of a maximum price of 245. 5d. by Section 5 (2) of the Toys and Indoor Games (Maximum Prices and Records) Order, 1943, has caused hardship to many shopkeepers who have stocks of toys the cost price of which exceeds 24s. 5d.; and what steps does he propose to remedy this matter?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. This Order was made on 22nd April, but, in respect of retailers' prices, it did not become effective until 1st October, allowing a reasonable time for retailers to dispose of their stocks of high-priced toys. The Chairman of the Central Price Regulation Committee discussed the possibility of retailers holding stocks of the toys referred to with representatives of the trade in July and August of this year, and asked to be furnished with early information as to whether any hardship was likely to arise. I am informed that no representations have been made to him in reply to his request.

Major Petherick: Did discussions proceed with the trade before the Order was introduced? Is it not a fact that the six months' period given to retailers to dispose of their stocks were the six bad months of the year, and did not include Christmas?

Mr. Dalton: They deliberately did not include the Christmas trade, because the whole purpose of the Order is that Christmas toys should be cheap.

Mr. Watt: Is it not a fact that the six months were of very little use to the trade? Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to receive representations, and to look further into this matter?

Mr. Dalton: I am always glad to receive representations, but most of the representations I have received on this subject have been that I should endeavour to cheapen the price of toys for Christmas time, which is the purpose of the Order.

Hydro-Electric Undertakings, Italy.

Sir A. Southby: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in possession of information to show to what extent British or Allied capital is invested in hydro-electric plants in Italy?

Mr. Dalton: According to returns made to the Board of Trade for inclusion in the Register of British Property in Enemy Territory, United Kingdom interests in

Italian hydro-electric undertakings amount to approximately £800,000. Registration is not compulsory, and so the returns may not be complete. I regret that I have no information as to Allied interests.

Sir A. Southby: Will the right hon. Gentleman make some inquiries as to the ownership of the capital invested in the Italian hydro-electric plant in the Val D' Aosta, observing that that plant has not yet been bombed?

Mr. Dalton: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will help me, and we will inquire together.

Cartels

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the statements contained in "Germany's Master Plan," recently published by two of the staff of the Anti-Trust Department of the United States Government, he will take steps to institute an inquiry in this country for the purpose of finding out to what extent there has been infiltration of German control into British industry?

Mr. Liddall: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has records of the pre-war infiltration of German cartels into British industries comparable to those revealed in the official American publication "Germany's Master Plan"?

Mr. Dalton: The amount of German capital invested, directly or indirectly, in British industry was very small. In these circumstances, and as commercial agreements, including cartel arrangements, with foreigners who have become enemies are now illegal, I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by instituting the suggested inquiry. The question of cartels after the war, as the Prime Minister informed the House on 22nd July, is under consideration.

Sir H. Williams: May I ask whether the Minister has yet read this book, which was published as a result of official inquiries in the United States and which shows that a great many cartel agreements are so drawn up that they will automatically resume when the war is over?

Mr. Dalton: I have had a quick glance through the book, which certainly seems very interesting. Whether it is accurate is


another matter, but at any rate it is very interesting. With regard to the post-war period, I have already referred my hon. Friend to the Prime Minister's statement that we are now considering what the policy should be regarding cartels after the war. For the moment, all those agreements with enemy persons are frustrated.

Sir H. Williams: Does not the Minister know that it is as a result of these cartel arrangements that we have been prevented in this country from producing certain things which otherwise we should have produced? Having regard to the fact that this book has been produced as a result of official inquiries, in the United States —it is the most heavily documented book I have yet seen—will he study it further?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir.

Sir Percy Harris: Will the Minister consider appointing a committee of experts to study this very difficult but vitally important matter?

Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister specially call the attention of the Minister of Production to this matter, in view of that right hon. Gentleman's unsatisfactory attitude in regard to the production of synthetic rubber?

Mr. Levy: Is the Minister aware that a number of British industrialists are involved in these cartels, which are only temporarily suspended, and does he not think that if an inquiry was made, with discovery of documents, the result would be extremely illuminating to him, in relation to his post-war problems?

Mr. Dalton: We shall willingly consider any means of acquiring additional information to enable us to deal with post-war problems.

Children's Shoes (Quality)

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make with regard to his recent investigation into the manufacture of children's footwear of poor quality?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make on the steps taken to improve the quantity and quality of children's shoes?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I have been much concerned lately 'by complaints regarding children's shoes. I, therefore, spent two days, earlier this month, in conferences with manufacturers and operatives, and in visits to factories, in the counties of Leicester and Northampton. I am satisfied that most manufacturers, despite the shortage of labour and materials, are producing children's shoes of good quality. I shall continue to do all that is possible to keep manufacturers up to the mark. I have decided that, as from 1st November, all outdoor footwear, non-utility as well as utility, shall bear the maker's identification mark. I have also decided to increase to 75 per cent. the proportion of children's shoes which must be made according to utility specification. My inspectors pay frequent visits to factories to investigate methods of production and to discuss with manufacturers how the quality of their output can be improved. I shall not hesitate to deal severely with any manufacturer whose output is consistently of bad quality.

Mr. Morrison: What effect does the right hon. Gentleman think his statement will have upon the harassed mother of several children who finds very great difficulty in making her coupons go round, because of the rapidity with which her children's shoes wear out?

Mr. Dalton: I hope it will mean that the future quality of children's shoes will be better.

Viscountess Astor: Is the inspector who looks after children's shoes a man or a woman? That is very important.

Mr. Dalton: I do not think it is very important. I am sure the inspectors are competent to do their work.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that women know a little more about children's shoes than do men?

Hon. Members: No.

Household Linen, Towels and Bedding

Mr. Astor: asked the President of the, Board of Trade whether he is aware of the serious situation prevailing in working-class households regarding household linen, towels and bedding; and whether he will undertake that, when the supply of goods justifies an increase in coupon allowance, he will consider giving preferential treatment to this need?

Mr. Dalton: As I have said in reply to previous Questions on this subject, the only essential household goods subject to coupon are towels and tea-cloths, and everyone who does not buy his own should take his turn to contribute a coupon or two when replacement is necessary. Bedding and other household linen are not rationed, but I am closely watching supplies.

Mr. Astor: May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman would do well to give some discretion for the giving of special coupons to households where there may be great difficulty on this matter?

Mr. Dalton: We have given considerable study to this question of the separate household ration. It is full of the most grave administrative complexities, which I have explained in previous answers in this House and should be very glad to explain to my hon. Friend.

Sir H. Williams: Does the Minister think it desirable that Questions about bed linen should be asked by men?

Tobacco and Cigarettes (Colliery Canteens)

Mr. Daggar: asked the President of the Board of Trade the reason for refusing the sale of cigarettes and tobacco at colliery canteens?

Mr. Dalton: Licences under the Location of Retail Businesses Order to sell tobacco and cigarettes are not normally granted either to colliery canteens or any other applicant where the essential needs of consumers can be met through existing retail outlets.

Mr. Daggar: Is my right hon. Friend aware that facilities do not exist at a number of canteens in this country nor at pit-head baths? Why, in heaven's name, cannot men be allowed to have cigarette licences at canteens or pit-head baths? Surely it is not for my right hon. Friend to decide where men shall buy their tobacco?

Mr. Dalton: I have had considerable conversation and correspondence on this subject with my hon. Friend. I wrote to him a letter on 23rd July in which I endeavoured to explain to him just why it was unfortunately necessary to refuse a number of applications to sell tobacco at canteens I explained to him in that letter that if we multiplied the retail outlets considerably, we should reduce

retailers' stocks below the safety level and reach again the scarcity conditions which existed in 1941. I went on to say that if in any case it could be shown to me that no convenient facilities existed near by a colliery for purchasing tobacco and there were no facilities for storing tobacco in lockers at the colliery, I would be very glad to grant licences—and I have done so in a number of cases; but we cannot grant them promiscuously ail over the country or we shall find ourselves in difficulties.

Mr. Daggar: As both answers are unsatisfactory, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest opportunity.

New Industries

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the apprehension felt as to the possibility of employment when peace returns in those once depressed areas where no new industries have been established and where those who had been unemployed for years before the war are now working in munition factories outside those areas; and whether be will make a more specific statement on this problem than has been made up to date?

Mr. Dalton: I am fully alive to the importance of this question, which has already received considerable study by the Board of Trade and other Departments concerned. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not possible to make a specific statement regarding future arrangements in any particular area, until we can see more clearly the future of the munitions factories to which he refers.

Mr. Davies: Does not my right hon. Friend think it is time the Govt. came down to earth on this subject, instead of making glowing promises? Is he not aware that even this war will end some day and that the people in the depressed areas want to know what is to happen to those areas when the war ends?

Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend knows that this matter is constantly being considered. I hope that, with regard to some aspect of the munition factories and their future, I shall be able to make a statement very shortly—on some aspects.

Mr. Davies: What does "very shortly" mean?

Mr. Dalton: The week after next, with luck.

Oral Answers to Questions — PREFABRICATED TIMBER HOUSES (SWEDISH EXPORTS)

Mr. Wedderburn: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether any prefabricated timber houses are being exported from Sweden to Germany and to enemy-occupied countries in Europe; and, if so, in what quantities?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): In 1942 Sweden exported about 100 prefabricated timber houses to Germany, about 800 to Norway, and about 300 to Finland in transit to Norway. There have been no exports to Germany in 1943, and exports to Norway have been very small.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Medical Services

Mr. Hammersley: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the complaints reaching him concerning inadequate medical attention in the Armed Forces; and whether he can make a statement?

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): Individual complaints about the Army medical services reach the War Office from time to time from various sources. The complaints are always investigated and I am glad to say that in most cases they are found to be without foundation. When there is ground for complaint it is the fault either of an individual or of the local administrative machinery and action is at once taken to avoid a repetition of the fault. I am not, however, aware that there is any body of complaint about the general organisation and administration of the Army medical services. In general, considering the special difficulties with which Army doctors have to contend and the impossibility of meeting the Army's full requirement of doctors, I am satisfied that the medical service given by the Army is good. An investigation is in fact now proceeding to ensure that medical officers at home are used to the best advantage of the Army. My view is borne out by tributes paid by all ranks to the work done by the medical services with the Army overseas. A short account of these services during the operations in Tunisia

was given in an answer to the late hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) on 22nd June.

Mr. Hammersley: Could my right hon. Friend say anything about recent improvements in the early diagnosis of tuberculosis in the Army?

Sir J. Grigg: I could not without notice.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Are there not general complaints of a shortage of soap and beer as well included in many letters which come to this country from the Middle East?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not know that soap or beer are medical stores.

A.M.G.O.T.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make any statement on the future name, constitution and policy of A.M.G.O.T.?

Sir J. Grigg: I have nothing at present to add to the statements previously made about A.M.G.O.T.

Mr. Driberg: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the administration of A.M.G.O.T. is to be confined to ex-enemy territories or whether it will also apply to former Allied territories, and, if so, whether French personnel will be included?

Sir J. Grigg: Not without notice.

Mr. Riley: Are the conditions under which A.M.G.O.T. operates reviewed from time to time, or are any changes to be made?

Sir J. Grigg: I spend a considerable part of my time reviewing the conditions under which A.M.G.O.T. works, so the answer is quite definitely "Yes."

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements have been made to ensure that qualified women are given the opportunity for training and service in A.M.G.O.T. on the same terms as men?

Sir J. Grigg: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Lady Apsley) on 24th September.

Mrs. Keir: In view of the fact that much of the administration and work of A.M.G.O.T. affects the social conditions


of the people, does not my right hon. Friend think that it would be wise and right that women as well as men should start training now for responsible jobs with A.M.G.O.T.?

Sir J. Grigg: If my hon. Friend will look at that answer, she will see that it is based on the conception that A.M.G.O.T. is concerned with the early operational stage and that when you get to what I may call the relief stage, A.M.G.O.T. may not be concerned with the administration at all.

St. Albans By-election (Captain Douglas-Home)

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make any statement about the delay that occurred in considering Captain Douglas-Home's application for permissson to stand as candidate in St. Alban's by-election?

Sir H. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War through how many persons' hands the request of 22nd September made by Captain the Hon. William Douglas-Home passed before it reached the Army Council on 4th October?

Sir J. Grigg: The time taken in getting a reply to Captain Douglas-Home was the result of a chapter of accidents. The application, which was dated 21st September and gave no indication of the date of nomination, was forwarded through the usual military channels, and did not reach the War Office till late on Friday, 1st October. It went first to the Registry. Owing to the fact that at the week-end there is necessarily a reduced staff, that it was not realised that the letter was an urgent one and that the Section dealing with these matters is not housed in the main War Office building it was not until 4th October that the necessary permission was telephoned to Command Headquarters. I have no precise figures of the number of hands through which the application had passed but it must have been considerable. Unfortunately the unit was then on exercise and, in fact, in the course of that exercise Captain Douglas-Home had been made a prisoner of war and his whereabouts were not known until he returned to his unit on 6th October, when the permission was conveyed to him. I understand that Captain Douglas-Home has, on three pre-

vious occasions, had applications to stand for election dealt with satisfactorily, and I much regret that on this occasion things went astray. But in order to prevent a similar mischance in future, arrangements are being made for this type of application to be sent direct from the applicant's unit to the War Office.

Sir H. Williams: Would it not be very much better if a great many more things were sent direct, and does not the fact that the document passed through so many hands show that many Government Departments are over-staffed?

Mr. McKinlay: Would it not be better to file this application to ensure it being there when a vacancy occurs?

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that the whereabouts of a prisoner of war in this country as a result of a military exercise is unknown? Is something wrong with the organisation?

Sir J. Grigg: Not in the slightest degree. This was an exercise which tried to simulate the actual conditions of war.

Skilled Tradesman (Application for Release)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the recommendation of the President of the Board of Trade, recently made in connection with a skilled tradesman of a low medical category, Gunner A. Attwood, No. 1114618, that this man's services are urgently required for boot repairing in a rural district, he will give an assurance that this man's case will be reconsidered?

Sir J. Grigg: This case was carefully considered in July along with other recommendations for releases from various Government Departments. An appeal will of course be considered if it is put forward by the Board of Trade, but unless additional factors of considerable weight are produced I regret that I can hold out little hope of the release of this man, who is 27½ and has been usefully employed in the Army for 2½ years.

Mr. De lit Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this case has been under consideration since last May arid that the President of the Board of Trade sent down representatives to investigate it and then put in a written recommendation; and is he aware that the area where this man's services are required is one of


the greatest food producing districts in this country?

Sir J. Grigg: The machinery for these releases is under a Departmental Committee on which the Ministry of Labour are represented as well as the Service Departments and other Departments concerned. I am under a pledge to the Minister of Labour that applications for release will not be considered except on the recommendation of this Committee.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not extraordinary that a recommendation of a Minister of the Crown can be overruled by a Sub-Committee at the War Office?

Overseas Cinema Entertainments

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Secretary of State for War why his Department proposes that cinema entertainment for the Army overseas shall be transferred from the Department of National Service Entertainment to the War Office; whether the Entertainments Board, under the chairmanship of Lord May, specially set up by the Government to control entertainment, and upon which all three fighting Services are represented, was consulted; and, if not, why not?

Sir J. Grigg: The question of the future development of cinema entertainment for the Forces overseas is at present under consideration. The other Services are being consulted.

Mr. Walkden: Has the right hon. Gentleman not received a communication from Lord May, the President of the Entertainments Board, protesting about the introduction of this scheme, and will not the scheme at present under consideration lead to a duplication and waste of manpower?

Sir J. Grigg: I was under the impression that the letter I had received from Lord May was a private one.

Mr. Turton: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the present position of cinema entertainment overseas is very unsatisfactory, and will he give an assurance that the needs of the Armed Forces in regard to cinema entertainment will be the only consideration?

Sir J. Grigg: To the second part of the supplementary question the answer is certainly "Yes." As regards the first part,

I know that this question is one on which two opinions are held, and very strongly held.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some lads in the R. A. F. protested against the ancient character of the films they were getting, and that following the protest the next week they got "Ben Hur "?

Colonial Allowance

Mr. Sexton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is according to Army Regulation that a soldier, serving in an area which entitles him to Colonial allowance of 4d. a day, has credited to him only 2d. for the day he is in hospital suffering from wounds received in action if he dies on that day?

Sir J. Grigg: No reduction in the issue of Colonial allowance to a soldier is made on the day of his death. My hon. Friend is perhaps referring to the fact that Colonial allowance is normally abated by half while a soldier is in hospital. The reason for this is that this allowance is paid to compensate broadly for the lower purchasing power of the soldier's pay in the station abroad, as compared with this country, and a patient in hospital can spend little on himself.

Mr. Sexton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give urgent consideration to the abolition of this Regulation? Does not the complete sacrifice of the soldier stand out in sharp contrast to the niggardly, shabby treatment given him by the Government?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not accept the implication contained in the latter part of the question; but the matter is already under consideration.

Political Activities

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for War whether in view of the fact that the King's Regulations relating to political activity are not to be too rigorously applied, he will now consider the reinstatement of the many members of the Communist Party, several of them non-commissioned officers, who have been released from the Army because of their political associations?

Sir J. Grigg: There is nothing in King's Regulations which forbids a soldier being a member of a political party, and the hon. Member is under a misapprehension in suggesting that soldiers are discharged


from the Army on account of their political associations. The substance of the first part of the hon. Member's Question was fully discussed in April of this year in the course of the Debate on the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, and I have nothing to add to what was then said by the Financial Secretary.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that last week, in answer to a question, he said that the Regulations should not be too vigorously applied? Is he not aware that I have already supplied him with information about a number of lads, with the very best of characters as soldiers, who have been commended by their commanding officers, but who have been released from the Army because M.I.5 put its finger on them on account of their previous political associations?

Sir J. Grigg: Certainly the hon. Member has written to me about various cases, and I have replied to him that, after personal investigation, I was satisfied that the action taken was right.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that in every case about which I have written to him the man has had the very highest character as a soldier from his commanding officer? Is not that correct?

Sir J. Grigg: I am not aware that that is so in every case, without looking up the cases which the hon. Member has sent me; but in some of the cases that is certainly so.

Mr. Maxton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have had cases of the same kind? What power is there to discharge a young serving soldier with a good record, on political grounds?

Sir J. Grigg: Speaking from recollection, I do not think that discharges can take place without the cases coming before the Army Council.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that I have a civilian case, a man passed A1, who has been refused entry into the Army, and has then written to the War Office and been refused, on the grounds that he is a Communist?

Sir J. Grigg: Perhaps the hon. Member will let we have details of the case, and I will look into it.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it the case that the Minister has no power over the Army Council?

Captain Cunningham-Reid: The Minister has spoken of taking a lenient view of King's Regulations, but surely King's Regulations are meant to be obeyed, and, if they turn out to be unfair, they should be withdrawn altogether?

Sir J. Grigg: What I said was not that they should be construed in a lenient way, but that they should be construed in a commonsense way.

Benevolent Organisations (Co-ordination)

Major Conant: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to co-ordinate the efforts of the many military benevolent organisations so that their funds may be used to the best advantage?

Sir J. Grigg: The British Legion, the National Association for Employment of Regular Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen, the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Help Society and the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association, have agreed to form a council under an independent chairman, Lord Rushcliffe. Other organisations are being approached to join the Council, particularly those concerned with the Navy and R.A.F.

Major Conant: Have the Council held their first meeting yet; and would my right hon. Friend suggest to the Council the possibility of forming a Central Register?

Sir J. Grigg: I think they have held their first meeting, but I am not sure. Certainly I will convey my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion to them.

Courts-Martial (Officers)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that officers undergoing trial by court-martial have normally to wait under arrest from two to 2½ months between the original investigation and the ultimate promulgation of sentence; that this constitutes a hardship both for the officers concerned and for the units to which they may be attached; and whether, to bridge the period of waiting, Army commanders will be given the necessary powers to confirm sentence and order promulgation without sending the proceedings to the War Office?

Sir J. Grigg: The examination of a batch of recent cases shows that the average time which elapses between the arrest of an officer and his court-martial is under eight weeks. This matter has been very carefully considered from time to time, and I gave some particulars in a reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield (Mr. Bull) on 4th May. I am glad to say that the average time between arrest and the promulgation of sentence has been reduced since then. Under the system now in force, Army commanders must send the proceedings to the Judge-Advocate-General for his advice on whether the proceedings are legally in order. This is an important safeguard, and it does not seem to me that it can be dispensed with.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is it not a fact that Army commanders have trained lawyers attached to their staffs as court-martial officers, and would not the proceedings be considerably speeded up if those trained lawyers gave their advice to the Army commanders and the Army commanders, who are very experienced officers, were empowered to promulgate?

Sir J. Grigg: That has been considered. I think it would remove an important safeguard. To the best of my recollection, the Judge-Advocate-General's representative at Command headquarters would have been involved in the preparation of the case.

Telegraph Forms

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the newly introduced Army Message Form, C. 2136, and to the instructions designed to make it practicable to use this form for messages over civil telegraphs; and, as under these instructions II alterations have to be made to every form so used and another Army form gummed on to each one involving waste of paper, printing, clerical labour and time, will he issue instructions that A.F. C.2136 is unsuitable for messages over the civil telegraphs and should never be used for transmission of such messages?

Sir J. Grigg: The military message form to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers is the one used by the three Services for their telegrams, which are normally handled over Service channels. It has been decided that the Post Office cannot accept military telegrams on the military

form as it stands. It is only on very rare occasions that a military telegram has to be handled by the civil telegraph system, and it is then considered more sensible for the Army Signals Service to amend the military form rather than to copy out the whole message once more on a Post Office form.

Mr. G. Jeffreys: Is there any real reason why they should not be ordered, when sending messages over civil telegraphs, to use the civil telegraph forms? Is my right hon. Friend aware that these elaborate alterations on the forms, to turn them into Army telegraph forms, make them the object of derision throughout the Service?

Sir J. Grigg: It only happens very rarely, so I cannot think that they are an object of derision throughout the Service.

Soldiers (Imprisonment)

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of soldiers serving terms of imprisonment, as distinct from detention, for military offences; and whether he can give details?

Sir J. Grigg: Ninety-three soldiers are serving terms of imprisonment in military prisons. The details of each man's offence could be obtained, but it would take time and labour, and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press his request.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Does my right hon. Friend think that he could give any instruction or guidance for proceedings at courts-martial?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not understand the question. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put it down, and then I can answer it.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: I mean, will he give guidance that sentences of detention should be given, rather than of imprisonment?

Sir J. Grigg: I should think it very wrong to give any guidance to a court-martial as to the nature of the sentences they should pass.

Army Exhibitions

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of visitors to the Army Exhibition in Oxford Street; and whether it is proposed to arrange similar exhibitions in provincial cities?

Sir J. Grigg: The number of visitors to the Army Exhibition in Oxford Street was 1,344,188. As the Exhibition was held in summer, three-quarters of it was not under cover, but the problem of finding suitable accommodation during winter months in provincial cities is not an easy one. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Information is investigating this, and it is hoped that it may be possible to stage exhibitions in the principal cities, though perhaps in rather a modified form.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman very carefully consider taking the Exhibition to industrial districts, where I think it would give a great stimulus to production?

Sir J. Grigg: I think that that is implied in the answer I gave.

"The Soldier's Guide to Sicily "

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet received a copy of "The Soldier's Guide to Sicily"; and whether he will now place it in the Library of the House?

Sir J. Grigg: I am in consultation about this with Allied Force Headquarters in Algiers.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have asked three times already for this very simple piece of information, and that it has taken some months to get it?

Auxiliary Territorial Service (Marriages)

Mr. Burke: asked the Secretary of State for War whether there is a regulation or instruction which provides that where a soldier and a member of the A.T.S. stationed at the same camp marry, one of them must be removed to another camp?

Sir J. Grigg: Husband and wife may not serve in the same unit.

Mr. Burke: Is it not a fact that there is no such Regulation in the R.A.F.; does it not mean that young persons will simply remain in the same unit and possibly postpone the date of their marriage; and will the right hon. Gentleman really consider whether this is absolutely necessary in every case, say, in the case of men who have been seven years abroad?

Sir J. Grigg: The rule in the Air Force is certainly rather different. I personally,

and the Army Council, take the view that the abandonment of the present rule would create a great deal of resentment in the minds of soldiers who have been absent from their families for four years or more.

Mr. Burke: How is it that the same resentment is not caused among the personnel of the R.A.F.; are they different?

Mr. Rhys Davies: When these people marry and belong to the same unit, who is the one that is removed?

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the same Regulation applies to Ministers of the Crown and their Departments?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR, FAR EAST

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information as to the result of the Red Cross conference which has lately taken place in America, with a view to making arrangements for the sending of parcels to prisoners of war in Japanese hands?

Sir J. Grigg: As the reply is rather long, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir A. Knox: In view of the anxiety of relatives of prisoners of war in the Far East, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he or some other competent person could give a broadcast, telling exactly the conditions under which these prisoners are living?

Sir J. Grigg: I think there is a Question down on the subject. I will certainly consider my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.
Following is the reply:
In response to cordial and welcome invitations from the American and Canadian Red Crosses, the War Organisation of the British Red Cross sent a delegation, headed by the Deputy-Chairman of the Organisation, Sir Ernest Burdon, and including the Deputy-Chairman of their Prisoner of War Department, Air. J. M. Eddy, which arrived in the United States early in September. The delegation proceeded almost at once to Canada for consultations with the Canadian Red Cross and Government Departments concerned


with relief measures for prisoners of war. They then returned to the United States, and were followed shortly after by a delegation from the Canadian Red Cross, and a full conference of the representatives of the three Red Cross Organisations met in Washington on 20th September. Its purpose was: (i) to pool all information from all available sources; and (ii) to consider ways and means of bringing badly needed relief to prisoners of the United Nations in the Far East, and to co-ordinate action to this end.
I am informed that the conference revealed an earnest desire on the part of all to co-operate in every way possible; but effective results will depend on the Japanese Government making available such facilities as are necessary to enable relief stores to be sent into Japanese controlled waters, and distributed to the areas in which prisoners are held by them. I am happy to say that the Soviet Government has been so good as to receive and provide storage, for the present, in Vladivostok for 1,500 tons of relief supplies a month, and these will be carried across the Pacific in Soviet ships. Though the Japanese Government have agreed in principle to accept supplies via the Soviet Union, they have not yet disclosed by what means they would propose that they should be conveyed from the Soviet Union into Japanese-controlled territories, and distributed there. Every effort is being made continuously through the Protecting Power and International Red Cross Committee to obtain, and indeed assist, in providing an assured solution of these practical problems. Immediately the willingness of the Soviet to carry and store supplies was known, the conference in Washington confirmed arrangements for the first month's shipments and laid plans for those for future months. I am informed that there was complete unanimity in these decisions, and that all supplies being sent by this route will be available for all prisoners from the United Nations in the Far East. In all these activities the War Organisation of the British Red Cross is receiving the full support and, wherever needed, assistance of his Majesty's Government; and the British Red Cross Society has been authorised by the other Red Cross Societies in the British Commonwealth to act on their behalf in these matters in the

consultations at Washington. The British delegation is remaining in America and is continuing joint consultations on the building up and carrying out of effective and co-ordinated plans.

Oral Answers to Questions — N.A.A.F.I. CHARGES (MIDDLE EAST)

Mr. Daggar: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the many complaints made regarding the food supplied to members of the M.E.F. and the high prices charged by N.A.A.F.I. in the same area, especially 2s. 10d. for a bottle of sauce, 6d. for soap, 7½d. for baked beans and 4s. for a bottle of lime juice cordial; and does he propose to take action with the view of removing the cause of such complaints?

Sir J. Grigg: I am not aware of general complaints on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. I am quite ready to investigate particular instances. The prices of the articles quoted in the Question vary greatly according to the brand and the size of the package, and transport charges and breakages put up the price of brands which can be obtained only from this country. I am informed that except in the case of baked beans the articles mentioned can be bought at N.A.A.F.I. at about half the prices quoted. The quantities and types of food which make up the meals provided for soldiers in the Middle East have been arrived at as a result of up-to-date scientific knowledge and several years of fighting experience, and I think most soldiers are well satisfied with their meals.

Mr. Daggar: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how these prices compare with similar articles for which half the price is paid in this country?

Sir J. Grigg: If the hon. Member will give me a specific instance which will indicate the places where grievances exist, I will investigate them, as I said in my answer.

Mr. E. Walkden: Is there not a variation right throughout the Middle East in the prices charged for similar commodities?

Oral Answers to Questions — ORDERS (UNIFORMITY)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Prime Minister why Orders made by the Secretary of State for India commence with a recital of names and status, whereas those


made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department omit such recital; and will be give instructions that so far as possible all Orders shall be uniform in draft?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): This difference is of long standing. It does not affect the clarity or the legal validity of the Orders; and this is not a matter in which I see any advantage in enforcing uniformity of practice.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL CONFERENCE

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to hold an Imperial Conference in London in the near future?

The Prime Minister: I am unable at present to add to previous answers on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — COS (SITUATION)

Major C. S. Taylor: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make upon the situation in the island of Cos?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, not at the present time.

Major Taylor: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether, in view of the fact that the German propaganda machine is making great use of this situation, he will be prepared to make a statement in the near future?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES OVERSEAS (LEAVE)

Major C. S. Taylor: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that men serving in the R.A.F. abroad are permitted to return home for leave after a shorter period of overseas service than men serving in the Army; and whether he will consider reducing the present qualifying period for leave of six years' overseas service for Army personnel to the same qualifying period as that of the R.A.F.?

The Prime Minister: Leave to the United Kingdom for members of the

Armed Forces is not related to length of service overseas. The grant of leave is confined to extreme compassionate cases. If, however, my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind tours of duty overseas during the war, I would refer him to the reply given on Tuesday last by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen).

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPTIAN POLICE (AFRICA STAR)

Mr. Astor: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the possibility of recommending the award of the Africa Star to the British officers of the Egyptian police who were working with the British services during the period of the African campaign?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Astor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men remained in the Egyptian service at the express request of the British authorities when most of them wanted to join the British Army, that they have been working in the closest possible co-operation and that their services have been invaluable, and will he reconsider this matter?

The Prime Minister: All those conditions would apply to a great number of people who did not have the honour to be called upon to serve actively in the African campaign.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY (CO-BELLIGERENCY)

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Prime Minister whether the Italian declaration of war on Germany means that Italian prisoners of war in British hands will now be re-embodied to fight against the Germans; and whether opportunity will be given to Italian citizens in the United Kingdom to enlist for service in the Italian forces against Germany?

The Prime Minister: Such questions will be settled with the single object of bringing the optimum war effort to bear upon the enemy. I have no statement to make on the subject at the moment.

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the Prime Minister whether the acceptance of Italy as a co-belligerent in any way affects the position of Italians in this country?

The Prime Minister: The legal status of Italians in this country is not affected. If my hon. and gallant Friend's inquiry relates to the treatment of Italian civilians this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Captain Cobb: Will my right hon. Friend say that we shall not have to listen to the Italian National Anthem played on the nine o'clock news?

The Prime Minister: My hon. and gallant Friend is under no obligation to listen to the nine o'clock news.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES SENATORS (REPORT TO CONGRESS)

Captain P. Macdonald: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the specific charges of unfair action and/or bad faith made against the British, in their report to Congress, by five United States Senators who recently visited the fighting areas in Europe and North Africa; and whether, to avoid the diffusion of ill will, he will place on record the British view of the facts?

The Prime Minister: Sir, the Report in question was made to Congress in Secret Session, and I am therefore neither fully nor accurately acquainted with its nature. A summary of ten conclusions reached by the Senators has been printed in the Record of the United States Senate. These conclusions bring no charges of the kind referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. However, apart from the above, many stories have been published purporting to represent what the individual Senators have said. I am well aware of the pain which some of these unfair and probably unauthorised statements have caused. I have carefully considered whether it is my duty to make a public reply. I have come to the conclusion that there would be no advantage in His Majesty's Government taking part in this wordy warfare, especially at a time when the British and United States Armies are engaged shoulder to shoulder in the battles taking place or impending on the Italian front, and when the Royal Air Force and the United States Eighth Air Force in a perfect brotherhood of arms are making heavy sacrifices in their attacks upon Germany. I have however caused a full statement of the facts to be

drawn up and kept here for the purposes of record or, if it should become expedient, for publication.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his decision not to place on record his view of the charges made by the five Senators applies to other Ministers of the Crown who have animadverted on the statement made by these gentlemen?

The Prime Minister: I think that the practice followed by Ministers will probably be governed by the answer I have given.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE PRISONS AND DETENTION BARRACKS (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister whether he has received the Report of the Oliver Committee on Detention Camps and Barracks; and, if so, when he expects to inform the House of its recommendations and the evidence submitted to the Committee of Inquiry?

The Prime Minister: The Report has only just been received and is now in the hands of the printer.

Mr. Bellenger: Does that include the report of the evidence or the summarised report of the evidence submitted to the Committee of Inquiry?

The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that the Report will also include the evidence, but I am not certain whether the evidence has yet been printed; but now that the Report is printed, one will begin to consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Entertainments Duty (Plays, Exemption)

Sir A. Southby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any further statement to make regarding the appoinment of a committee to advise on the exemption of plays from Entertainments Duty under the provisions of Section 1 (5) (d) of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): Yes, Sir. Sir Ernest Pooley, Sir Gerald Canny and Dr. T. H. W. Armstrong have been appointed as an advisory committee to assist the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in the


task laid upon them of deciding what entertainments should be regarded as partly educational within the meaning of the Section to which the hon. Member refers. Directions have also been given that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise should take special care to satisfy themselves that any organisation claiming exemption from duty under this Section is of a kind genuinely entitled to the benefit of its provisions. This will involve more detailed inquiry than in the past into the financial arrangements of bodies claiming exemption and into the disposal of the proceeds from exempted entertainments.

Income Tax (Employers' Advance Payment)

Mr. Pethich-Lawrence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is permissible for employers, if they so desire, to pay to the Inland Revenue quarterly in advance the Income Tax of their employees?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: As this will be a distinct advantage to employers employing only two or three employees at fixed salaries and will save a considerable amount of postage, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he will draw it to their attention?

Sir J. Anderson: I will consider it.

Five Per Cent. Conversion Loan

Sir F. Sanderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to exercise his option in giving three months' notice on the first interest date after 1st November, 1943, to redeem the Five Per Cent. Conversion Loan, 1944–64, amounting to £319,209,843, with a view to converting it into a new stock-bearing interest not exceeding three percent., so as to save the annual interest charges?

Sir J. Anderson: This matter is well in mind, and a decision will be announced in due course.

War Damage Payments

Viscountess Astor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider giving effect to the representations asking him to amend the War Damage Act, 1943, so as to ensure that in any case where a person entitled under the Act to a value payment in respect of

a building destroyed by enemy action is 65 or over in the same year as the occurrence of the war damage, such payment shall be made as soon as the amount is ascertained?

Sir J. Anderson: This and similar proposals have been carefully and sympathetically considered from time to time, notably when the amending Act of 1942 was before the House, but the Government have always felt that the balance of argument lies against their adoption. The proposals would give preferential treatment to one particular class of persons among many who have suffered financially as a result of war conditions, and even within that class would benefit only a small minority, since the great bulk of damaged dwelling houses (which form by far the largest group of damaged properties) will qualify for a cost of works payment.

Viscountess Astor: Do the Government realise that people of 65 or over, particularly those who have been bombed out several times, do not live very long afterwards, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman, even if it is only something, once more consider giving these old people something now and not wait until after they have gone and nobody can get anything?

Sir J. Anderson: I have given a very full reply.

Viscountess Astor: It is a very unsatisfactory reply for bombed towns.

Land Sales (Taxation)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the sale of the Ifield estate of 1,200 acres in Sussex, on 23rd July; whether he is aware that it cost £50,000 before the war; that it fetched £128,000 at the first auction and was sold for a greater sum at the two subsequent sales on the same day; and what steps he proposes to take to collect these increased values for the Treasury?

Sir J. Anderson: On the general question of the liability to Excess Profits Tax of the profits arising from the sale of land, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my predecessor to his previous Questions on the subject, in particular those of the 13th June, 1940, and 9th and 30th September, 1941. The hon.


Member will appreciate that in view of the conditions which govern direct taxation I cannot give any information regarding the liability to tax of individual taxpayers.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Chancellor regard these particular transactions as being carried out in the course of trade or business?

Sir J. Anderson: That must depend on the facts, and I could not make any disclosure as to the facts of a case.

Lend-Lease

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was approximately the amount of Lend-Lease from the United States of America to Great Britain to the end of June; and whether he will, in future, give the figures quarterly to this House?

Sir J. Anderson: No attempt is made to keep a record in terms of the cash value to us of the Lend-Lease aid received from the U.S.A.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Chancellor aware that the President of the United States, reporting to Congress in June, gave a figure? Further, in view of the fact that he recently stated that when the war is over nations who receive benefit under Lend-Lease will be expected to pay back not in money but in goods or other benefits, would it not be a good thing if the House knew what was the indebtedness?

Sir J. Anderson: I have looked into the figures published on the other side, and they do not give the value for each particular country.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Chancellor read the President's report to Congress in June, in which he gave figures specifically and stated that the amount was approximately £1,500,000,000?

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the report made to Congress by the five American Senators who were recently in this country on a good-will mission, he will give an assurance that the British Government is not taking advantage of the Lend-Lease Agreement to make a financial profit and that the goods received by this country have not been diverted from their original purpose, in

view of the effect of such allegations on our relations with the United States of America?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think the points at issue to which the hon. Member refers were precisely as he has represented in his Question. I can assure the hon. Member that our arrangements, of which the American Administration has full knowledge, do not result in our deriving any improper advantage from Lend-Lease. Cases occur regularly where Lend-Lease goods are transferred by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to other Empire and to Allied Governments but only by specific agreement with the United States Government. Furthermore, Lend-Lease goods are not diverted from their original purpose except again by specific agreement with the United States Government. Care is also taken to see that recipients are left in no doubt as to the origin of the goods supplied.

Capital Levy

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to introduce a scheme for a capital levy to reduce the National Debt?

Sir J. Anderson: I have nothing to add to previous statements on this subject.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Chancellor still of the same opinion as that which he gave before the Select Committee on Increase of Wealth (War), in 1920?

Sir J. Anderson: I will keep that in mind.

Commander Loeker-Lampson: Are not Death Duties a capital levy?

Officers (Retired Pay)

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government is prepared to raise the rate of pension to retired officers in view of the fact that since it was settled the cost of living has risen appreciably and that officers have to pay full Income Tax on any pension they may receive?

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon Friend to the reply given on the 4th August, 1942, to the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys). I am sending a copy to my hon. Friend.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Will my right hon. Friend again consider the Position of


these people, whose pensions were fixed when the cost of living was probably the lowest since the last war?

Sir J. Anderson: I must remind my hon. Friend that these people are not the only class affected.

UNITED NATIONS BANK

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the American proposal with regard to a United Nations Bank; and whether he has any statement to make to this House?

Sir J. Anderson: Copies of the proposal have been communicated to the representatives of the Treasury now in Washington with certain oral explanations. The text of the proposals has only just reached me, and it will be desirable that His Majesty's Government should give careful study to the proposals and explanations before a further statement can be made in the House.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Chancellor satisfied that he has not been misinformed? Is it not a fact that the draft of these proposals was in the hands of the Treasury early in April this year? In view of the discussions which are now taking place, will he make it perfectly clear to the United States Government that it is not the policy of the British people to put the devastated nations in debt to the moneylenders?

Sir J. Anderson: The reply I gave was accurate, and I cannot make a statement until the proposals have been examined.

Mr. G. Strauss: In view of the great importance of these proposals, might we be put in possession of an authoritative report on their details as soon as possible?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. I should be glad to see that a copy is put in the Library.

DISABLED PRISONERS OF WAR (EXCHANGE WITH GERMANY)

The Minister of State (Mr. Richard Law): The House will have seen the statement on the repatriation of disabled prisoners of war which was issued by the Foreign Office last last night. The agreement which has been reached and which is now being put into effect has been the

result of prolonged negotiations. It will be remembered that the attempt which was made to reach an agreement two years ago failed at the eleventh hour through no fault of His Majesty's Government. Since that time my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has laboured unceasingly, through the Protecting Power, to reach an agreement. It was not, however, until after the end of the Tunisian campaign that proposals were received from the German Government which led to the present agreement. I am conscious, Sir, of the very deep anxiety which has been felt in all parts of the House regarding this matter, and I would like to take this opportunity of thanking hon. Members for the restraint and understanding which they have shown.
There are two agreements which cover all those members of the Armed Forces of the British Commonwealth and of the United States who have been passed by medical authorities for repatriation under the Geneva Convention. In all there are over 3,000 seriously sick and wounded men, the great majority of them members of the United Kingdom Forces, who are coming home from Sweden, as well as 1,200 or more officers and other ranks including doctors, chaplains, medical orderlies and stretcher bearers. It is expected that they will leave Gothenburg either to-morrow or the day after.
There are a number of Canadians included in the Gothenburg exchange. In addition more than 1,000 men, members of the forces of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Cyprus, Palestine and other parts of the British Commonwealth and Empire, will be brought from Germany to Barcelona. Nearly half of these are sick and wounded. The United States will not take part in this movement but 17 members of the United States Forces are included in the Gothenburg exchange. The total number of prisoners of the British Commonwealth and Empire who will be repatriated under the present agreement is about 5,400. This number includes about 170 sick merchant seamen and about l00 sick interned civilians.
Between 5,000 and 6,000 German prisoners of war are being sent back to Germany by the British Commonwealth and the United States. We have throughout received unfailing co-operation from the Swiss Government in their capacity of Protecting Power, and I feel sure that


the House will wish to record its gratitude to the Swiss authorities.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: While congratulating the Government and their diplomatic and military officers on this happy issue may I ask whether, in order to consummate it, having regard to the long suffering of these men, my right hon. Friend will assure the House that he will represent to the Ministers of the Fighting Forces and the Minister of Pensions that these men will remain on full pay until there has been time for their claims for pensions to be fully looked into, so that there may be no practical omission on the part of our country in giving them the return they deserve?

Mr. Law: I am sure that we are all very conscious of the debt we owe to these wounded and disabled men, and I will certainly pass on what my hon. and gallant Friend has said to the appropriate Departments. Perhaps I may add to what I have said by saying that these arrangements are being carried through under the personal supervision of the Adjutant-General, whose representatives will be on the quay to meet the men when they arrive. I am also authorised to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions will have his representative on the quayside as well.

Mr. Bellenger: Would it be possible to say whether these negotiations have included the release of a certain number of prisoners who cannot be transferred back to this country to Switzerland, as was done in the last war?

Mr. Law: No. Every single prisoner, as far as I know, who would be eligible under the Geneva Convention is being repatriated in this exchange.

Mr. Mathers: Do the arrangements come to guarantee to those relatives who had advice that their soldier friends were coming back together on a previous occasion that they may expect to see them soon?

Mr. Law: The next-of-kin have been communicated with, and, as far as anything can be certain in an uncertain world, the relatives may expect to see their kin before very long.

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Are we to understand that this repatriation is practically an exchange on the basis of man for man between Germany and ourselves?

Mr. Law: No. The exchange has been conducted under the Geneva Convention without respect to the number of persons involved. The fact that the numbers approximate is due to the fact that we and the Americans together have more German prisoners than they have of ours.

Mr. Leach: What proportion is still left of wounded and disabled men on either side, or do I understand that they are now already covered?

Mr. Law: I do not think any single man who has been passed by the medical authorities will have been left in Germany by this exchange. Of course, there will be other men who have been wounded and will be in process of passing through.

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: In view of the fact that in 1918 prisoners of war who had been for a long time in Germany were exchanged through neutral countries, are any negotiations going on for that purpose?

Mr. Law: That is another question, which it would probably be better not to mix up with this one.

Orders of the Day — REGENCY BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In the Gracious Message which the Prime Minister delivered to the House when we resumed after the Summer Recess His Majesty the King asked us to take into consideration the amendment of the Regency Act, 1937, in such manner as, firstly, to provide for including among the Counsellors of State the person who is Heir Apparent or Heir Presumptive to the Throne, if over the age at which the accession of a Sovereign does not necessitate a Regency, which is, as the House will recall, the age of 18, and, secondly, to enable persons who are absent, or intended to be absent, from the United Kingdom to be excepted from among the number of Counsellors of State. In moving the Address in reply to the Gracious Message, the Prime Minister informed the House that a Bill to give effect to His Majesty's desires would be introduced in another place. The Government lost no time in introducing that Bill, which is now before the House, and I am sure the House will pass it with all reasonable expedition.
The purposes of the Bill are certain to commend themselves to the House generally, and it is an agreeable reminder of the assured position which the Monarchy now occupies that this should be so. In the long history of Parliament Regency Bills have been in the nature of legislative rarities. In the interesting historical survey which the present Lord Chancellor, who was then Home Secretary, made in moving the Second Reading of the Bill of 1937 he referred to four Regency Acts—and I think his list was comprehensive—before the present century, the Acts of 1536, 1751, 1811 and 1830. In our own time the balance has been somewhat redressed. This is the third Regency Bill within the recollection of senior Members of this House, and both the previous Bills, those of 1910 and 1937, though not wholly unopposed, commanded general support. This, however, was not always

the case in respect of previous legislation on this subject. In 1751, for example, one of your predecessors, Sir, Mr. Speaker Onslow, took what was even then the unusual course of addressing the House in opposition to the Government's proposals. He said, taking perhaps an unduly gloomy view, though it is to be remembered that the Jacobite rising in '45 was fresh in the minds of his listeners:
We are now going to place our country on the verge of a precipice from whence the least touch may tumble it headlong into confusion and civil wars, not only without any necessity but at a time when the Legislature never had a better opportunity or more cause to avoid the danger.
Over the Act of 1811 controversy was still more acute and did little credit to any of the parties concerned. "Highly objectionable as it was in its own nature," said one of its opponents, "it was rendered still more so by the manner in which it has been argued"—a charge which at any rate on this occasion I do not think hon. Members are likely to level against me.
The Regency Act, 1937, which will be amended by the present Bill, was novel in that for the first time it made permanent provision for the three contingencies of the minority of the Sovereign on his succession, any incapacity of the Sovereign during his reign and the absence of the Sovereign from the United Kingdom. Previously, ad hoc provision had been made for those contingencies as they arose, which in the nature of things was when they were likely to be most difficult to deal with. It was because of the failure to make any permanent provision that, on the occasion of the Regency Bill of 1811, recourse had to be had to the doubtful expedient of conveying the Royal Assent by a Commission, purporting to be issued by the King, though he was, in fact, incapable at the time. It was because of the lack of permanent provision that when the need for action arose in the reigns of George II and George III political crises occurred. On the other hand, it was because of the controversial nature of these questions, that it was so difficult to find permanent solutions.
The Act of 1937, therefore, met a need which had long existed, and the present Bill will not in any major respect affect the permanent machinery which was instituted then. The provisions relating to a possible Regency will be unchanged,


but the Bill will amend the provisions as regards the appointment of Counsellors of State on two points on which experience has brought anomalies to light. Subsection (2) of Section 6 of the 1937 Act provides that in the event of the Sovereign's illness or absence or intended absence from the United Kingdom, the Counsellors of State shall be the wife or husband of the Sovereign and the four persons who, excluding any persons disqualified under the Act from becoming Regent, are next in the line of succession to the Crown. The Sub-section is mandatory. There is to be no picking and choosing between the persons designated, and this is clearly right, provided that they are available to discharge the duties of a Counsellor of State. Discrimination would be invidious, would promote controversy and would serve no practical purpose. But the Act failed to provide for the possibility of the absence or intended absence from the United Kingdom of one or more of the designated persons at the time when circumstances necessitated the appointment of Counsellors of State.
When Their Majesties visited Canada and the United States of America in 1939, the Queen was automatically included among the Counsellors of State, though she was absent from the United Kingdom with the King. It is obviously anomalous that this should happen. The provision affects not only the Queen but any person qualified to be a Counsellor of State, and the same situation may well, of course, occur again. The point may not be of very great practical importance, since the Letters Patent appointing Counsellors of State may provide for a specified number of them to act, and the primary purpose of this Bill is not to deal with it, but the Government thought that the present opportunity should be taken of removing this anomaly. The Bill accordingly provides that if it appears to the Sovereign that any person who would be required to be included among the Counsellors of State is absent or intends to be absent from the United Kingdom during the whole or any part of the period during which the Royal functions are to be delegated, the Letters Patent may make provision for excepting that person from among the number of Counsellors of State.
The main purpose of the Bill, however, is to deal with the other matter to which His Majesty alluded, the approach of the Princess Elizabeth's 18th birthday and the desirability of enabling her to acquire experience by acting as a Counsellor of State if the opportunity should occur Eighteen is the age at which, in accordance with the Act of 1937, the Sovereign can begin to discharge the Royal functions without the necessity of a Regency. It will be, noted that the provision is statutory. There is nothing in the Common Law to this effect, as is sometimes supposed. Under the Common Law the Sovereign is never under age, but a succession of ad hoc Statutes have fixed 18 as the age at which the Sovereign could assume the full Royal powers, and the Act of 1937 made permanent provision on this basis.
For the Regent, however, it prescribed 21 and not 18 as the minimum age. The reason for the distinction was that it was felt than when a Sovereign died leaving a daughter slightly older than his eldest son, who would be the heir to the Throne, it was hardly suitable that she should be Regent until he attained the age of 18. It was felt better that the next in the line of succession who was of full age should be appointed. This, on the whole, seems right, and it is not proposed to make any change. But the Act also laid down 21 as the minimum age for being a Counsellor of State, and one consequence is that while the Heiress Presumptive on succeeding to the Throne could perform the Royal functions at 18, she is disqualified from performing the far less onerous and responsible functions of a Counsellor of State until she is 21.
It is the desire of the King and Queen, as His Majesty told us in the Gracious Message, that the Princess Elizabeth should have every opportunity of gaining experience in the duties which would fall upon her in the event of her accession to the Throne. This is a desire with which the House will be most sympathetic, and it will strike a chord of sympathy, too, in the hearts of every mother and father anxious like Their Majesties that their own children shall have the best possible opportunities of preparing themselves for their adult vocations. Formal though in the main the duties of a Counsellor of State may be, they will undoubtedly provide valuable training for the wider and heavier responsibilities of a constitutional monarchy, and the Bill accordingly provides


not simply to meet the present need but as a permanent measure that the Heir Apparent or Heir Presumptive, if not under the age of 18, shall not be disqualified from being a Counsellor of State by reason only of his not being of full age. This will continue to be a disqualification in other cases, but t will, I think, be agreed that the position of the person who may at any time be called upon to assume the full powers of the Sovereign is exceptional and that the same considerations do not apply to others.
I do not think that I need argue the case for this proposal any further, and if I cite what is, at least, a partial precedent, it is more as a matter of interest than by way of argument. I have been looking up the history of this question—and very interesting history it is—and I find that while in the Middle Ages, when absences of the King were frequent, the Justiciar, or, at a later period, a Lieutenant, normally acted for him, Henry H appears to have contemplated the institution of a practice whereby his eldest son, though not of full age, should act in his absence. In accordance with the custom of the period the Prince was crowned in his father's lifetime, and, both before and after his coronation, he acted for his father in the latter's absence. The delimitation of functions between the Prince and the Justiciar, if such delimitation was made, is not clear, but in this capacity the Prince transacted business, issued writs and generally acted as Regent while still an infant.

Mr. McGovern: He signed the cheques.

Mr. Morrison: I do not know. We are not proposing to go as far as this. The Heir Apparent or Presumptive will act as one of the number of Counsellors of State under more experienced guidance and, of course, on the advice of Ministers, but the fundamental conception underlying the present proposal is the same as that of Henry II.
In conclusion, the House will wish to know that while the Dominions are not immediately affected by this Bill—the points with which it deals do not arise as far as they are concerned—the Government thought it right to inform them of what was proposed. I am sure that the House will approve of this action. The Mother Country and the Dominions are bound together in a common loyalty to

the Crown, and although this Bill is, strictly speaking, a purely United Kingdoms matter, they are interested in any question intimately affecting the Throne. I do not suggest that this Bill is a Measure of great constitutional or political importance. Obviously it is not, but the occasion for it, the approach of the Princess Elizabeth's 18th birthday, is pleasing. It will make two useful improvements in the machinery of the 1937 Act, and in the confidence that it will be generally approved I ask the House to be good enough to give it a Second Reading.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I think that the Bill will meet with the approval of the House. I have not the erudition of my right hon. Friend, who has thrown a great light on these problems. I am sure that it seems to the House that it is right that Princess Elizabeth, on approaching the age of 18, should begin to be entrusted with some of those responsibilities which she may be called upon to fulfil in greater measure at some subsequent date. Therefore, on those grounds I believe the House will welcome the Measure. I would, if I may, take the opportunity very humbly to suggest that her future education might well be conducted in association and cooperation with others of like age, so that she may, before those responsibilities come upon her in all their fullness, have that knowledge and experience of life which will be of enormous assistance to her in the responsibilities which she may one day—I hope a long distant day—have to bear.

Sir Percy Harris: I would like to give my support to the common-sense proposal contained in this Bill. It did not require the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman to persuade the majority of the House that this is a proposition that should have the support of Parliament. We cannot forget that Queen Victoria ascended the throne at 18, that she discharged her difficult task with great skill, and that she inaugurated one of the greatest reigns in our history. It is a good thing that this young lady, who has the respect and affection of the whole nation, and who inspires such hopes for the future, should have the advantage of some experience in the difficult task she will ultimately have to undertake.

Mr. Stephen: I was somewhat doubtful with regard to this Measure, but after I heard the Home Secretary the point of doubt in my mind was removed. This young lady is going to be put into this position, and I wondered whether, since the age at which her sisters in the country would qualify for the vote was 21, an exception in her case in connection with this matter should be made. I see, however, that there is this difference, that this is a matter of beginning her apprenticeship, and I do not think the age of 18 is a wrong age to begin the course of apprenticeship to the trade she will occupy in the future. Consequently, there is no objection that we take to the Measure. I thought that it was as well that I should make this point, in view of the position that my colleagues and I have taken with regard to previous occurrences in connection with the Royal House.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day. —[Mr. A. Young.]

Orders of the Day — RENT OF FURNISHED HOUSES CONTROL (SCOTLAND) BILL??

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I would invite the attention of the House to the problem of dealing with the excessive charges now being made upon some tenants of furnished dwellings in Scotland. The subject is an exceedingly complicated one. It is extremely difficult of exposition. It proved intractable to previous Government Committees of inquiry in 1920, 1923, and 1931 when investigations were being made into the operations of the Rent Restrictions Acts. The problem arises chiefly, although not entirely, from the great shortage of houses. In Scotland in pre-war years our overcrowding percentage figure was six times that obtaining in England and Wales. To the serious deficiency of house accommodation in pre-war years there has now been added the fact that in some areas there has been destruction of housing by enemy action. In some areas there is still further overcrowding through the neces-

sities of war-time production, and there is of course every-where a shortage of stocks in the furnishing shops. These are conditions which breed opportunities for exploitation — increasing demand and diminishing supply.
We must observe in fairness that the overwhelming number of lessors of furnished dwellings do not take any undue advantage of the necessities of the lessees and that in hundreds of thousands of cases the terms of let are amicably and equitably arranged between the parties. The last thing I want to do is so to upset or prejudice these amicable arrangements that we might drive lessors into refusing to let their furnished rooms at all. The greatest possible error we could commit would be to take any steps that would limit the amount of housing accommodation presently available. But there are Shylocks among us, people without any social sense whatever, people who use the housing shortage and the national emergency to squeeze the last monetary advantage they can from the necessities and the disabilities of their neighbours. These people are prevented by law from exacting scarcity rents for their unfurnished houses. Every houseowner, just and unjust, mean and magnanimous alike, is limited by, the Rent Restrictions Acts and any of their tenants who sub-let any part of a house as a separate dwelling unfurnished are also limited in their exactions by the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts. Sometimes there is no legal right to sub-let at all. For example, there are municipal and private tenancies where sub-letting is forbidden as a condition of the principal let. But to the best of my information and belief the position of the tenant of an unfurnished dwelling separately and legally let is protected by the present law from extortionate charges. When I say "separately and legally let" I mean let with the landlord's consent. If not so let the landlord may get the tenant himself evicted without proof that there is alternative accommodation available, and if the principal tenant lets only part of his house as a sub-let without the landlord's consent then from that part which he so sub-lets he may be himself evicted by the courts without proof of alternative accommodation being available.

Mr. Stephen: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that part of the subject, will he make


clear the position of the person who sublets a part of his house without the owner's consent? If there is nothing in the terms of the let to say that he cannot sub-let, is that sub-tenant not protected by the Rent Restrictions Act?

Mr. Johnston: I think those intricate points should be put to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, but my information is that the part of the house which is let without the landlord's consent—I do not know what is the legal meaning of the word "consent"—can be held to have been illegally sub-let. Subject to the £90 limit, every house or part of a house that is let as a separate dwelling comes under the Rent Restrictions Acts by virtue of Section 12 (2) of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1920, and it is clear beyond doubt, I think, that an unfurnished sub-let, whether of a whole house or part of a house, is covered. It is expressly provided in Section 12 that the word "tenant" includes the word "sub-tenant" and that the word "let" includes the word "sub-let" and in the case of Roe v. Russell the English Court of Appeal decided in 1928 that the sub-tenant of an unfurnished sub-let had all the protection conferred. by the Rent Restrictions Acts on tenants; and the same decision has been given in Aberdeen Sheriff Court in the case of Simpson v. Aitken in 1938. So I think it is clear that in law the sub-tenant of an unfurnished dwelling is protected by the present Rent Restriction Acts.
Now there remains the problem of the furnished let. By the Rent Restrictions Act, 1920, Sections 9 and 10, it is laid down that only a normal profit is to be permitted, that the lessee may recover any overcharges, and the lessor who charges an extortionate rent may be fined up to £100. Section 9 of the Act defines normal profit—this is extremely difficult, and I am afraid I must stick to my brief—in the case of a house controlled before September, 1939,as the profit which might reasonably have been expected from a similar let in 1914, plus 25 per cent., and in the case of a house controlled after September, 1939, the normal profit is the profit which might reasonably have been expected from a similar let in 1939 but without any percentage addition. The court is directed to have attention to the margin of profit allowed under Section 9

in cases of houses controlled before 1939, but in other cases there is no such direction given to the law courts and it is left entirely to their discretion to say what is a normal profit and what is an extortionate profit.£
A law court is faced by obvious difficulties in determining the meaning of the word "extortionate" There is a great variety of circumstances to be weighed and measured. What, for example, is the furniture worth in any case? What value is to be placed on heating and lighting? There may be the right to have hot water; there may be partial use of a bathroom, a washing house and so on. It is extremely difficult for a law court to estimate the value of these services when they are considering whether a rent for a furnished let is or is not extortionate. In a recent case in the Scottish law courts, the Lord justice General laid it down that before the rent of a furnished let could be held to be extortionate the contract must have been secured by force, fear or fraud or by taking unfair advantage of the unequal situation in which the lessor and the lessee find themselves. If a bona fide agreement to pay a certain sum has been entered into, then extortion is exceedingly difficult to prove. It would appear that in Scotland there is virtually no legal protection against exploitation or extortion in furnished lets, as the law now stands.
As to the extent of the problem, in Glasgow there has been an increase in the practice by which one person becomes the tenant of a number of unfurnished houses, generally houses with from three to seven rooms, let at rents ranging from £25 to £60 a year, and, after placing a limited quantity of furniture in the houses—sometimes a ludicrously limited quantity—sub-lets them at rents ranging from 5s. to 16s. per week per room. Many of the principal tenants are now receiving about five times the rent which they pay to the landlord of the house. For example, in the case of one six-room house rented at £40 a year, the principal tenant has sub-let, furnished, two rooms at 12s. a week each, one at 13s., two at 14s. and one at 15s., thus receiving a total weekly rent of £4, or £208 a year, far a house which is on the valuation roll at only £40. Another house rented by the same person at £40 a year is sub-let, allegedly furnished, by rooms at weekly rents which bring in £231 a year.
I have already said that it is most difficult for the law courts to say when extortionate rents are being exacted. It is true that by Section 10 of the Act of 1923 the value of the furniture has to be a substantial portion of the total rent, but I have heard of cases in which a frying pan, a picture of Moses in the bullrushes, a wisp of linoleum, an old bedstead and a chair were the total furniture provided. I could give a large number of cases, of which we have records at the Scottish Office, of exploitation on these lines. In one case four and a half times the value of the annual rent has been obtained. In another case, this is in Glasgow,
the annual rent is £27 and the annual rent from the furnished lets is £135 4s. Another case: annual rent £23 10s., annual rent from furnished lets £114 8s. Another case: £34 on the roll, annual rents from the furnished lets £245 14s. Yet another case, in Glasgow: the annual rent on the roll is £35, and £210 12s. is exacted from the tenants. This is found not only in Glasgow, it is all over—well, I will not say it is all over the country, but the mischief is spreading to other parts of the country. I have instances from little villages in Aberdeenshire—Peterculter and Inverurie—one where the annual assessment is £17 10s. and the place is let as a furnished dwelling at £4 a week. It is the same in Aberdeen City and at Oban. There is a case at Dunoon in which the annual rent is £10 and the place is let at £2 a week. In Ayr Burgh there are a large number of cases and others at Troon, Prestwick and Helensburgh. In Inverness Burgh a place which is assessed at £29 annually is actually let furnished at £5 5s. a week. The same thing is going on in the County of Moray, and in the County of Ross and Cromarty a little house near Invergordon with an annual rent of £7 is let furnished at £120 a year.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Could my right hon. Friend say anything about the position in Edinburgh?

Mr. Johnston: I have a few cases in Edinburgh, but not so many. There are other circumstances there. There is a part of Glasgow, on the South side, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) once directed my attention, where properties are being let to Indians and sub-let by Indians to their own fellow citizens at extraordinary

prices. I have a list of them here, but the House would not want it. At Rosyth, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. McLean Watson), we have one case of a room in a council house actually let at 25s. a week.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Are there numerous cases of council house sub-lettings? We have a large number in Kilmarnock.

Mr. Johnston: Oh, yes. The local authorities have definite powers. The Stirlingshire County Council, for example, have been trying out regulations for fixing the value which should be placed upon particular items of furniture, and they make an arrangement that no furnished room shall be rented at more than 5s. per week in a county council house, failing which there will be eviction of the principal tenant. As I have already explained, there is power to evict in any cases where the principal tenant sub-lets, unless with the consent of the landlord, and the county council can act.

Mr. McLean Watson: Did I understand my right hon. Friend to say that there was a case in Rosyth?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Watson: I understood that most of the houses in Rosyth were owned by the Scottish National Housing Company.

Mr. Johnston: I will find out the exact particulars, but I can assure my hon. Friend that my figures are correct. It was a council house.

Mr. Watson: I am surprised, because sometimes the town council fixes at 10s. per week the amount that should be charged.

Mr. Johnston: My figures are that one room in a council house was charged at 25s. per week. The date is 15th October, so that is not long ago.
How do we propose to deal with this problem? The Government do not propose to amend the Rent Restrictions Acts by this Bill. A Committee of Inquiry is being appointed, as has been announced in the House, and it is to deal with the manifold and complicated issues which have arisen in other directions in the Rent Restrictions Acts. Before the Bill was introduced at all, the most exhaus-


tive consideration was given to all possible methods of dealing with the problem. For example, the possibility was considered of fixing maximum rents for furnished lets by applying a fixed ratio to the rent of the accommodation unfurnished. For example, we considered providing that the rent of the furnished accommodation should not exceed, say two, or two and a half, times the rent of the house unfurnished, but this method clearly would be impracticable, owing to the wide variation in the nature and the amount of the furniture and the services which might be provided, and also to the different rent levels for furnished accommodation in different parts of the country. We also considered building up a maximum rent by fixing maximum prices for the various items included in the let. We found that it would be unworkable because of the wide differences between the furniture and the services that might be included in the different lets. It was obvious that once we fixed a figure for furniture, that would tend to be the maximum of the furniture that would be provided. In fact, all methods of controlling furnished lets by fixing a general standard, are open to the fatal objection that if the maximum permissible rent is high enough to allow a reasonable rent for a decent let with good furniture, it would leave room for profiteering where the furniture was flimsy and inferior. On the other hand a maximum set at a low level to catch the shark would penalise the lessor of good accommodation and would probably restrict the total amount of furnished accommodation now available for letting.
We therefore came to the conclusion that each case would have to be dealt with on its merits, and we decided that the best way of doing it was to establish local tribunals, to consist of people well qualified to decide such questions as the value of furniture and services. The procedure before the tribunals will, I hope, be kept simple and informal. The tribunals will fix a fair and just figure of rent in each case, where application is made to them by either party to a contract, either the lessor or the lessee, or by the local authority. The decisions taken will be notified to the parties and to the local authority. The tribunal will keep a register of its decisions, which will be open to public

inspection. Clause 3 of the Bill provides that it shall be unlawful to ask or receive more than the tribunal fixes in each case and £100 fine or six months' imprisonment is the penalty which may be incurred for overcharging.

Major Lloyd: I did not understand from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman whether there is an appeal against a decision of the tribunal. He said that the tribunal will fix a fair rent; I have no doubt he means he hopes it will do so. Is there an appeal against tribunal decisions?

Mr. Johnston: There is no appeal on a question of fact as to what is a fair rent, but no penalty can be imposed by the tribunal. Anyone who infringes a decision of a tribunal will land himself in the law courts, but there will be no penalty imposed by the tribunal.

Mr. McNeil: Will my right hon. Friend explain the phrase "the rent of premises "? What happens when there is a change of tenancy?

Mr. Neil Maclean: In his reply to the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) the Minister said there could be a penalty in the law courts for an individual who had been letting furnished accommodation and violating a decision of a tribunal. Is the onus of taking a recalcitrant owner to the courts to be left to the individual who has been renting the house furnished and who is bound by the decision of the tribunal? Is it clear that there must be a civil action by the occupant of the furnished apartment?

Mr. Johnston: Prosecutions by way of law are not civil actions to be undertaken by the parties who are the victims. They will be undertaken by the State. As to the point put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) where a tribunal has fixed a decision as to the amount which may be legitimately charged to a sub-tenant for particular premises, that fixed sum adheres to the premises even if there is a change of tenancy. If, however, the landlord or the tenant in chief should vary the amount of furniture, if he adds to the amount of furniture let us say, it is open to him to go back to the tribunal and ask for a rehearing and a re-settling or refixing of


the amount. The House will note that the rent fixed by a tribunal is not affected by a change in tenancy. It is a maximum rent which can be charged for the particular premises, unless and until there is a change in the circumstances and until the tribunal rehears the case in the light of those changes and upholds its decision.
As to the fear of eviction after an award has been given, please let us note that the decision affects the premises, so that a lessor will not be able to make a fresh bargain with a new sub-tenant. The amount fixed adheres to the premises. In England, where the law is somewhat different and where the local authorities may take a case before the magistrates in any circumstances, where they believe there is undue exploitation, it has been reported to the Ministry of Health that in the 18 months between 1st July, 1941 and 31st December, 1942 there were 206 well-founded complaints of over-charging investigated by the local authorities. In these cases many reductions were made by negotiation, and prosecutions were taken in others. But only in six cases out of the 206 did the local authorities require to use their power of billeting in order to ensure that sub-tenants got decent accommodation. Every Scots local authority has been given powers of requisitioning which may be used to prevent the intentions of Parliament being defeated. After a tribunal has decided a case it would clearly be right to see that the subtenant is not spitefully evicted. That can be prevented by the use of the requisitioning powers given to local authorities in appropriate cases.
Those are our proposed methods of preventing, limiting, and we hope and believe stopping, the cruel extortion upon people who have no homes of their own and for whom the Rent Restrictions Acts have not provided protection. The principle here is that of the rent court and of investigation into the circumstances and arbitration on the facts. It is a principle which we tried so successfully in the fixing of the proportion of rents now payable for partially war damaged houses after a blitz. In these war damage disputes and difficulties we have had 264 fixations and not a single complaint about either the justice or the equity of the decision. The Bill has the backing of all local authority associations in Scotland and since its publication we have had

indications that the local authorities of the city of Dundee, the burghs of Johnstone, Kirkcaldy, Dunfermline, Dumfries, Kilmarnock, Inverness, and Clydebank and the counties of Lanark and Dumbarton would welcome the immediate creation of these tribunals. And not only do these local authorities support this Bill, but the National Federation of Property Owners and Factors have expressed their concurrence. [Interruption.] It is right that that should be said, and I hope that there will be more of this kind of concurrence in the interests of the tenants. On the Committee stage we hope to propose Amendments designed to strengthen the provisions of the Bill. Services as well as attendance will be covered, and I trust that from Parliament there will emerge a useful safeguard against scandalous exactions which, though not widespread, are felt intensely by the victims.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: I would like to make a few observations on this Bill. First I would like to thank the Secretary of State for a letter which was put into my hands two or three minutes ago dealing with points I have been raising with the Scottish Office. As I have not had time to look at it carefully, I apologise in advance in case I say anything that has been met in the letter. I represent a constituency which, does a great deal of catering for holiday people. I represent many landladies both of private hotels and boarding houses, and it is from their point of view that I am rather worried about this Bill. I would like to have some points cleared up. We all realise that these controls are necessary in wartime, but I am a little frightened perhaps that in a case of this kind it is going to be continued too long. If you look at the duration of the Bill, it will be found that it is to continue not only to the end of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, but six months afterwards. I can see no reason in the world why it should continue for six months after the Defence Regulations come to an end. What worries me is that six months may easily mean a year in the case of my constituency, because it caters for summer visitors. Supposing the six months were to begin in April or May, they lose that summer period, and therefore it would mean a year. I see no earthly reason why this Bill, which is a war-time


Measure, should not come to an end at the same time as the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act and Regulation 18B and the rest of them.
With regard to the tribunal which is to decide tins matter, and which is mentioned in the Schedule, as hon. Members will see, the chairman of this tribunal has to be an advocate or a solicitor of not less than five years' standing. I cannot understand why the Secretary of State wishes to tie his hands in that way. Everyone of us knows that all solicitors with good practices, which means the good solicitors, are so under-staffed that they are working on Saturdays and Sundays themselves, which means that the only solicitors who will be available will be those who are not good. Why the Secretary of State should want to tie his hands in that respect I do not know. I took this point up with him, and I got a little satisfaction from this letter. The Secretary of State wrote in it:
I have given careful consideration to the constitution of the Tribunal and I think that I shall be able to meet your suggestion that the Chairman should not be required by the Bill itself to have legal qualifications 
But surely in a matter of this kind of fixing fair rents it is common sense which is wanted, not legal qualifications. I cannot understand this objection. There is no reason why the Secretary of State should not have a lawyer if he wants one, but why make it essential? I hope he will reconsider that point. Another thing is that I think the tribunals will have to go and see the premises. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the way in which some are furnished compared with others. To assess a rental without seeing the place would be unsatisfactory. I hope that the Secretary of State will not tie his hands by putting legal people as chairmen. Let him have a free choice and get the best person he can for the job.
With regard to the letting of houses with board and attendance, I am very worried about that. If hon. Members will look at Clause 9, Sub-section (2), they will see that it says:
Nothing in this Act shall apply to a house or part of a house let at a rent which includes payment in respect of board.
I think that is quite reasonable, but the Sub-section goes on with a proviso which washes all that out. This is what the proviso says:

Provided that a house or part of a house shall not be deemed to be let at such a rent unless the value of such board to the tenant forms a substantial proportion of the whole rent.
The women who mostly run private hotels and boarding houses—I have a bill in my hand—do not differentiate as to what your meals cost. [An HON. MEMBER: "They do not differentiate?"] Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to finish what I am saying, so that I can make my point more clear to him. They do not differentiate. I have a bill here from a temperance hotel in my constituency where I stayed. The bill is made out "Bedroom and meals"; that is all the details given. Let me in answer to my interrupter say that in that particular boarding house where I stayed I arrived at about 6 in the evening, had a very fine tea with fish, everything one could want, went to my meeting, came back to another sit-dawn meal, had early morning tea and a very much better breakfast than you can get anywhere in London. All that, with bed and hot water, cost me 10s,

Mr. Buchanan: Where is this hotel?

Sir C. MacAndrew: In Lochranza. It ill becomes people to show only one side of the picture. My point is that if it is to be necessary to prove by that proviso that a substantial part is represented by board, it means far more book work for these people. I was in Arran a fortnight ago. The season has ended. These people are short-staffed, they are absolutely played out, they do not get into bed on the day they get up. They are to be asked to prove that a substantial amount is spent on the food. The right hon. Gentleman told us in his speech that they cannot define what "extortionate" means. No doubt that is perfectly true legally. Can they define what "substantial" means? Can the Lord Advocate?

Mr. McGovern (Glasgow, Shettleston): The meal the hon. and gallant Gentleman had for breakfast.

Sir C. MacAndrew: In view of the fact that it cannot be explained to me what it means, I hope the proviso will be taken out altogether, and furnished rooms be allowed to be let as they have been in the past in the holiday places. In the case of a perfectly honestly conducted


business of letting rooms which has been conducted for a long time, it seems a pity to make matters so difficult for a deserving class of people to carry on. We know what their season is. We know that they have to charge high rates. Who goes to these holiday places in Scotland in the depths of winter? I hope that this matter will be considered. I feel very strongly about it.
If it is not possible to cut out that proviso, which I sincerely hope it is, I think that the interpretation Clause might have an addition put to it to define what is meant by lessee. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of people not having any choice about where they had to live. I quite agree that they should not be exploited, but to make it more difficult for people who run these businesses in holiday resorts is unfair. I do not see why there should not be added another interpretation to the effect that the expression "lessee" means a person who by reason of his calling must reside in the neighbourhood wherein the house is situated. I think that would cover the person who has nowhere to go. It seems to me unfortunate to have a tribunal to go prying into the affairs of these people who are working hard and doing their best to serve their public, which is what they are doing as everyone knows.
I do not think there is anything more I wish to say except to remark that a Bill of this kind, which has been in our hands since the end of July, has been brought in at the tail end of the Session. I know of course that we cannot have a Scottish Standing Committee to which it could be referred by Mr. Speaker and where it could be thrashed out and got into fair order. I do not now how long we shall have for the Committee stage, which will be on the Floor of the House. It seems to me a pity that a Measure which will affect so many people should be put through in such an undiscussed form as this must be. I therefore appeal to my right hon. Friend to cover those people who let rooms by cutting out the proviso in Clause 9. I know that the Lord Advocate thinks that they might trick the Measure by charging enormous amounts for early morning tea, but the Scottish people are honest. [Interruption]. No, landladies are not too bad. I know it is a popular thing to say that they are bad. What we want to do is not to deal with

the good or bad but to be fair, and I think that the proviso to Clause 9 should be taken out.

Mr. Mathers: The Bill that is now before us is one that arises very largely out of our serious housing position in Scotland, and I think that the Secretary of State is to be commended for his courage in making an endeavour to deal with what has in many directions—and he has proved it—come to be a very serious grievance among people who are in the position of not having houses which they tenant in their own right, by trying to make their position a more tolerable one. The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken directed his attention first of all to the period over which the Bill is to continue. My reaction to the period put to the Bill is entirely different from his. I make the claim that this Bill deals with a matter which is not of war-time origin, although it may to some extent be aggravated during the period of the war. My contention is that protection like this for tenants of furnished accommodation should continue after the war is over and not simply come to an end at a period very shortly after hostilities have ceased. My constituency is very different from that of the hon. and gallant Member. To only a limited extent is it used for the provision of furnished accommodation during the holiday season. Because of the need for people to live somewhere adjacent to their work, many of the houses have sub-tenants in them. It is with them that this Bill seeks to deal. From my own observation, the furnished accommodation is let, in the vast majority of cases, to sub-tenants whom the original tenants know. It is not a question of dealing with strangers in the majority of cases, but with friends, and, one might almost say, fellow-sufferers from the difficult housing situation. In those cases, there is to my knowledge, none of the exploitation with which this Bill seeks to deal. Neither in those cases nor in the case which the hon. and gallant Member cited, of the good accommodation which he obtained in his constituency for a very low figure, will the tribunal be called in.

Sir C. MacAndrew: A portion of that 10s. of which I spoke must have been allotted for my board and a portion for my bedroom. It would not have been unreasonable if I had been charged 10s.


for my bedroom, and then my food would have cost me nothing. If that had been the case they would have been subject to the investigation of the tribunal, because my board would not have been a substantial part of the bill.

Mr. Mathers: I expect the tribunal to act reasonably, and to deal with these matters in a proper way.

Sir C. MacAndrew: However fair the tribunal is, if the feeding part of the charge came to nothing they could not help themselves.

Mr. Mathers: The instance given by the hon. and gallant Member related to both board and accommodation. If the board cost nothing there would be only the accommodation to take into account.

Sir C. MacAndrew: But the point is that the board must be a substantial part of the cost.

Mr. Mathers: The hon. and gallant Member has met his own point by saying how substantial the board was for what seemed to him a reasonable charge. In reading this Bill, I was concerned as to how this attempted protection could be given without doing real harm to those who complained about extortionate charges by the tenants of the house in which they had one or two furnished rooms, which might perhaps cost them more than the whole rent of the house. What drives people into paying the large amounts which are sometimes demanded for furnished accommodation is their dire need of somewhere to live. If such people found themselves getting the advantage of a decision by the tribunal, it looked, on the face of the Bill, as if the person who let the accommodation had the simple remedy of asking the other people to leave the house. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that there is not a complete lack of protection for the sub-tenant who has his rent reduced by the tribunal to a reasonable figure, and that the local authorities can exercise power to requisition the accommodation and billet the sub-tenant there if he is threatened with unfair eviction for refusing to pay too high a rent. I hope that this Bill will be given a Second Reading. There will probably be points to look at on the Com-

mittee stage, but I regard this as a real attempt to deal with a serious menace, and I commend the courage of the right hon. Gentleman. I realise the pitfalls, but the very fact that an attempt is being made will be a warning to people who have been exploiting others who are worse placed than themselves in respect of housing accommodation. I think it will be the desire of the whole House to give this Bill a Second Reading, and on the Committee stage to get down to the real inwardness of the Bill, and help the Secretary of State to make it an effective Measure to carry out the object that he has in view.

Major McCallum: Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Ayrshire (Sir C. MacAndrew), I represent a constituency largely composed of holiday resorts. I was rather dismayed to hear my right hon. Friend quote two of them as examples of extortionate letting. In some ways I must disagree with my right hon. Friend, because I feel that all honest boarding-house keepers, lodging-house keepers, hotel keepers and so on will welcome this Bill. I would like to draw attention to a point which may have escaped my right hon. Friend. In those two burghs of Oban and Dunoon there has been extreme difficulty in obtaining lets by Service men and women. In both burghs a great amount of accommodation has been requisitioned by the Services, and it may be said that the Services have got quite enough and that the rest should be left for civilians. But I know many cases where married officers and men are taken into furnished accommodation throughout the winter months, and when the holiday season comes round they are quietly told to leave the house. Friends of mine have gone around the country looking for somewhere to live at a reasonable rent in order to make way for these holiday-makers paying high rents. I very much welcome this wartime measure to control that sort of thing, and to make it possible for Service men, as well as holiday-makers, to go to the tribunal and appeal against unjust eviction.
There is another point which I would like to make. In the case of these furnished lets there will be quite a large number of lessees who will not be prepared to appeal. They would rather pay the high rent, because of the difficulty of


getting accommodation. I wonder how it will be possible for inquiries to be made where extortionate rents are suspected. Perhaps we could be told by the Lord Advocate to-day, or on the Committee stage, whether the police will have power to investigate the charges. I am speaking for a large number of my constituents who are owners or tenants of furnished accommodation which is sub-let to holiday-makers, and I can say that they are perfectly willing for their cases to be brought before a fair tribunal. This Bill will serve a very useful purpose in catching the dishonest ones.

Mr. McGovern: I think we can all agree that this Bill is being produced because of the tremendous overcrowding, due to the shortage of housing. The real solution would be the provision of housing. But, because of the lack of house-building, there is serious overcrowding in cities like Glasgow. I would be the last to deny that even the people who organise flats and break houses up for occupation by three or four families, are serving a useful purpose. Instead of five-or six-apartment houses being occupied by a couple of persons, four small families may be given reasonable accommodation; and that will help to mitigate the serious hardship and suffering. But there are other aspects of the case, deeper than some of those which have been mentioned by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am told that sometimes the actual tenant of the house is not the only evil-doer. I sent on to the right hon. Gentleman an anonymous letter which I received regarding a woman in the Townhead district of Glasgow, who was stated to have got the house that some other woman was after, and it was said that that was the fortieth house she had got hold of. That was a Mrs. Carroll. The houses were all sparsely furnished, and substantial rents were being charged. I thought that the Secretary of State might have sent me some of the details discovered by the investigation. It was rather a short letter, sympathising and saying that he was b dealing with the position. We have not got to know of any of the rents that were demanded or anything as to the woman who had secured these 40 houses. He talks of the house factors' and property owners' collaboration, but that is more theoretical than real. I am told that many people take the houses as tenants from the house

agents or the landlords. The rent is, say, £40, but there is a secret understanding that £10 per month will be paid to the agent or the landlord. That means that a person who takes the house demands more in return from the tenant in order to make up the proviso which is laid down by the house agent. If that is general, you can see how Mrs. Carroll would get hold of 40 houses in the city of Glasgow. She would be an accredited agent for paying that amount of money in addition to the house rent.
There are a substantial number of furnished houses in Glasgow for which the rents charged are not exorbitant. I know of friends of mine who pay 15s. for a room where two or three people have been put into a house. The places are decently furnished, and one cannot grumble and say that the rents are extortionate, but, on the other hand, there are cases, such as the right hon. Gentleman told us to-day, where tremendous amounts are charged for rent. The horrible thing is that a large number of the people who come after these houses are the wives or wives with children of serving men, who with the allowances that they are receiving cannot afford to pay the rents that are demanded. In consequence, only the people who are doing rather well out of the war or are in a decent position are able to pay the extortionate rents, while a large number of families with small allowances are being herded together in houses that are a disgrace.
There is another serious aspect of overcrowding of which I have been told by many people. When they come after a house, even if they are prepared to pay the rent demanded they are asked, "How many children have you? What ages are the children?" They say to some young married couples, "You have no family. Am I to take it that you have no intention of having a family during the period of the war?" All kinds of questions of this description are put to these people. The really most needy members of the population, those with children, are being debarred from a large number of these houses which are being taken over and let at extortionate rents. These are aspects with which the Bill does not deal. I can see a difficulty in regard to the selection of tenants and also of determining what is a reasonable rent. A house which might only contain, as the right hon. Gentleman


described it, a picture and one or two little things, could be called a furnished house. On the other hand one might go to a house which contained very fine furniture, and the rent demanded for it could be justified, but such a rent could not be justified in respect of the house very sparsely furnished.
Do not be mealy-mouthed about landladies. We know that there are very decent landladies, but in some cases landladies are demanding for houses, let on the roll at £40, as much as £30 a month for the houses furnished. Sometimes people have two or three houses. While landladies must be protected if they are being slandered in any way, one must realise that the whole of the west coast is not just packed with all the decent landladies which the hon. Member mentioned. His speech was rather a defence of unreasonable rents. Decent landladies —and there are many—will welcome this Bill in order to bring into line those who are charging extortionate rents. Therefore, the decent landladies will not sympathise with the remarks of the hon. Member. The question of fixing the rents is going to be one of the thorny questions.
A point was raised recently which I thought was very substantial. Is it only on complaint that the rent is to be investigated? If the decent person who, we often find, refuses public relief and would almost starve rather than make application because he does not like to expose his poverty, is being plundered in a vicious manner and does not complain, is there to be any investigation or fixing of rent? Has a person to complain to the authorities of what is deemed to be an unjust rent before investigation takes place? The whole of the furnished dwellings of the country should come under review, and areas should be put in blocks and investigators should find out whether unreasonable rents were being charged. We know from our own experience that a great deal depends on the type of individual who is selected to serve on a tribunal. We know this with regard to hardship committees and employment exchanges. There is the type of man who always refuses to accept either evidence or pleas, and the same might be true of the tribunals. I am not satisfied that the chairman should be a legal man. The chairman might be a legal man and could go into many legal points and could interpret the Bill, but

there is to be a clerk to the tribunal who could surely help to guide the tribunal. There are many men who know a great deal about the problems of buildings, housing, rent and furniture who might, in many instances, be more useful than a lawyer perhaps with no knowledge of these things at all. The Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland should consider whether it is essential to have a legal man as chairman of the tribunal. I agree that you must have somebody of wide experience and a certain amount of knowledge in relation to the subject, but I do not think that it is essential that he should be a legal man. It is essential to hold these tribunals and to appoint persons with a little knowledge and with human sympathy.
I am not going to say that the problem is one that cannot be solved in a reasonable manner. I have heard of many complaints in relation to furnished houses in the City of Glasgow. On the other hand, as I have said, I know of many people who are happily housed in war-time houses and who would rather have a house of their own. They are being charged fairly reasonable rents, and they are fairly well furnished, and the tenants receive very decent treatment indeed. Some of them are friends of mine and people with whom I am associated and have visited, but there are a number of people who are exploiting the poverty and the necessity of the population, and it is essential that their operations should be curbed in a very substantial way. I return to where I began. The overcrowding which undermines the health and morale of the nation is all due to the lack of houses, and I am satisfied that a greater measure of activity should be indulged in at the present time in the provision of houses. The war is being made the excuse for every reactionary measure and for the lack of operations. A tremendous number of houses could be provided for the population even with the limited amount of materials and labour available. That is really the cure for overcrowding. Until we get houses built there will continue to be this cancer in the life of the nation. We have, in places like Glasgow, seven, eight, nine and 10 persons living in a single apartment house. There are tubercular cases among these people. Take whatever action you like to curb the activities of these parasites who are living on the needs of the nation


and exploiting them, pay homage to those who are providing furnished rooms in a decent manner, but above all let us keep our eye on the great necessity for a housing drive even in time of war. All these diseases and frictions to-day are the price that the nation is paying for the tremendous blood bath of war.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I think that this Bill is very much overdue. I live in a constituency which wants 3,000 houses, and it has 800 sub-tenants. In many cases extortionate rents are being charged, little children are living in these sub-tenements, and there is literally no home life. Therefore, all I wish to say is that I hope the Bill has a speedy passage through this House and that in spite of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Northern Ayrshire (Sir C. MacAndrew) this House will not be deterred from the main and simple issue outlined by the Secretary of State. I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Bill, because it is largely overdue. The larger question of housing can be dealt with on another occasion, on which we shall have a bit to say, but this is a short Bill to meet the situation which many of us have had to face in the shape of letters year after year and nothing could be done. As my county council supported this Bill last week, I have great pleasure in endorsing it.

Major Lloyd: I, like other hon. Members, join in welcoming the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in bringing forward this Bill. There have, as we all know, been many questions during the last few months in this House on the scandalous and unhappy state of affairs which undoubtedly exists in certain parts of Scotland and has made the Bill very necessary. My right hon. Friend obviously represented the view of Members of this House who are interested in Scottish affairs and who represent Scotland when he took the initiative in introducing this Bill. There is no fundamental difference between any of us on the desirability and the necessity for it. There are, undoubtedly, scandalous instances which could be quoted by any one of us, and doubtless the Secretary of State and the Department at St. Andrew's House have many more than we as individuals could produce. But the evidence is abundant that there are scandalous instances of gross

profiteering on the part of individuals. It is not by any means confined to one class or section of the community. I would like to emphasise that, because it has so often been suggested that profiteering is indulged in by only one particular class of employers or property owners. This Bill is aimed at any section of the community. There is evidence among all classes, even down to the humblest, of scandalous instances of profiteering. The object of this Bill is universal. It is to cripple the black market in the necessities of the people in regard to homes. That a black market exists there can be no doubt. This is the first real attempt to control it, and I, like others, welcome the Bill whole-heartedly.
There are, however, one or two points with regard to the Bill itself which I would like to raise with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, who, I expect, will reply to the Debate, and which I daresay other hon. Members will like to raise if they can catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I noticed that it is up to the Secretary of State to say whether or not the provisions of the Bill shall be brought into effect in any particular area. In other words, if I have interpreted the Bill aright, I gather that it does not have immediate universal application throughout Scotland as from the date of the passing of the Bill. Each individual county or area has to be scheduled, as it were, by a decree of the Secretary of State that the Bill is applicable to that area, which presumably he will do after consultation with any county, burgh, Member of Parliament or other persons who have evidence to bring about the area. I am not quite happy about that. Why should that be necessary? If it is needed in Scotland, why should it not have automatic application through that country? I cannot see the object of this qualifying Subsection of Clause 1 of the Bill, and I would like the Lord Advocate to give me an explanation, if it is possible to do so. At any rate, I record my dissatisfaction with it at the moment.
I am a little worried about the fact that this appeal from an aggrieved party to the tribunal may occur at any time after the contract for the rent has been fixed and the individual is in residence. That does not seem quite right. Some may argue—and it is an argument I would appreciate—that a wrong is a wrong any-


how and the fact that it was discovered two or three years afterwards does not matter. It seems wiser to give the aggrieved party ample time, say six months or a year, to make his complaint but to leave it for an indefinite period, so that he may be inspired to make it two or three years afterwards when everything has been settled and fixed, seems rather hard luck on the other party to the agreement. It may not be a big point—I do not think it is—but it is a point of justice. There must be some time limit within which an aggrieved party should make his decision to appeal. Do not let the period be entirely indefinite and unlimited.
I am also a little worried, and others may be, too, about the fact that there is no appeal against the decision of the tribunal. I am prepared to agree that the great majority of tribunals will act wisely and justly and, as the Secretary of State optimistically said, will fix a just rent as a result of their decision. But human beings vary in their qualifications, capacities and sense of justice, and these tribunals will not be specially qualified to make decisions of this character necessarily so. Even an advocate is not necessarily qualified. I entirely agree with those hon. Members who have suggested that it is quite unnecessary to make it a sine qua non that an advocate or a solicitor should be chairman of the tribunal. I agree. It ought not to be a sine qua non. No one will expect that these tribunals will be perfect. What I am worried about is that some of them will be imperfect in their decisions, with the best will in the world, because their qualifications are not of the highest, and in these difficult days, when it is hard to find folk, that might well occur in certain districts.
Another thing I am worried about is that decisions will vary considerably from district to district. It is almost inevitable. It is very difficult to get uniformity in these decisions. The decision of one tribunal affecting a rent in one district might be contradicted by the decision of another tribunal in another district. That will cause a certain amount of heart-burning and make an invidious distinction. There is no appeal when the decision has been made, however unfair, unqualified and mistaken it may be. However much it differs from other decisions a short distance away, the decision is final. I would like the Lord Advocate to consider that

point, because that does not seem to be quite right. I have always been a great believer in the right of appeal. We have always had that right against unwise and unfair decisions.

Mr. Buchanan: No, we have not always had the right of appeal. For instance, in cases of hardship people may be sent away and may suffer without having the slightest right of appeal.

Major Lloyd: Perhaps I did make a sweeping statement, but my hon. Friend, with his strong sense of justice, will, I know, agree that everybody ought to have the right of appeal so far as possible against what is considered to be injustice in the first instance. In this Bill there is no right of appeal at all against a decision which may vary from district to district or which may not be quite fair. I have nothing more to add except to say that I hope the Lord Advocate will consider these points and that we shall have an opportunity of putting down Amendments on the Committee stage.

Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire): I hope hon. Members who do not come from Scotland will pay attention to the fact that the Secretary of State held several disarmament conferences before this Bill came into the House. I attended one myself as a member of a local authority. The Secretary of State makes a practice of disarming all his critics and then producing his Bill. However that may be, I think everyone will agree that the ultimate solution of this problem is an adequate supply of houses and I am realist enough to believe that an adequate supply, despite all that may come from the Government Front Bench, will not be here within the next 15 years. In any case, this is not a problem which is peculiar to the war; it existed in Glasgow long before the war broke out and was caused, in the main, by a scarcity of dwellings. I know it is no use stressing the obvious, but may I point out that on a previous occasion I suggested that there should be a compulsory register and that all persons who desired to let or sub-let ought to register with their local authority their intention to do so? It is no use tribunals chasing people round the countryside either inviting complaints or throwing out suggestions that complaints will be received. If a proper register was kept by the local authority and if it was illegal for persons


to let accommodation unless they were on that register, you would simplify the machinery to a very considerable extent. It is true, as the Secretary of State said, that persons at the moment, under the Rent Restrictions Acts, have protection, but it does not operate, because those Acts are too complicated. Moreover, in industrial areas, in the main, persons do not want to embark on what may be costly litigation. As a consequence the law is being flouted and violated every day of the week where the sub-letting of furnished or unfurnished dwellings takes place.
I am not competent to deal with the legal aspect, but I should like to know whether the machinery set up under this Bill supersedes the machinery of the Rent Restrictions Acts. One of the substantial difficulties has been that the standard rent has never been allocated. My view —and I am not alone in this—is that the basis of any rent charged to a sub-tenant ought to be the basis of the allocation of what the proportion of the standard rent is to the principal tenant. That fixes a definite sum. That sum might be considered excessive, but the fact remains that the landlord would be restricted to the percentage he is entitled to get on that allocation. It is an absurd task to ask the ordinary person to try to understand the complications and formulae about standard rent.
The point about advocates or solicitors being chairmen of the tribunals has been mentioned. There are any number of legal assistants with the local authorities, officers who could be seconded for this work as and when required and who could give legal guidance which may be necessary to the chairman. I agree with other Members that when it comes to a question of determining facts a person who has had intelligent experience of local authority administration is just as good as any legal gentleman. I believe that the majority of people are terrorised when you mention that the legal fraternity have anything to do with a particular Measure.
With regard to the problem of farmed out houses this type might be called "gentlemen farmers" and it was just as serious at one time. I could keep the House for hours with harrowing details which have been brought to my own notice as Convener of the Glasgow Cor

poration Housing Committee. In a small way the Glasgow Corporation have in operation the control of sub-tenancies, because no tenant of a corporation house is permitted to sub-let unfurnished. They are permitted to sub-let furnished. That was imposed upon Glasgow by the influx of population when lodgers were becoming the rule instead of the exception, and, with a view to regularising it, permission was granted, but, in the main, furnished sub-letting is sub-letting of the complete house because the tenant has been evacuated. The terms of the sub-let are laid down by the Department and are communicated to both parties. They are that the sub-tenant of a furnished house meets the overheads, the rent and the rates, and relieves the principal tenant, who has been evacuated, of that responsibility, plus—I do not know of any case where there has been any figure higher except in exceptional circumstances—10 per cent. for the use of the furniture. I do not say that in some cases that may not appear harsh. All I am trying to indicate is that this thing can be controlled effectively and that aggrieved sub-tenants would be more confident in approaching the local authority, if the terms of the let were not being adhered to, than in going to an outside body. I hope the Secretary of State will give serious consideration to compulsory registration with the local authority of all persons who intend to sub-let furnished or unfurnished.

Mr. Francis Watt: (Edinburgh, Central): I generally find myself able to congratulate the Secretary of State on the various Bills that he brings forward, and I am pleased to say that this case is no exception. There has been for some considerable time what may plainly be described as a ramp in the letting of furnished houses and apartments. I am glad to know that shortly we shall have a remedy. It may be that there have been certain protections in the case of houses belonging to corporations, such as that mentioned by the hon. Member who has just spoken, where it appears that to some extent the Glasgow Corporation have certain powers to restrict the misuse of sub-letting, but in the main there has been no protection whatever, and the instances that have been given by the right hon. Gentleman show that there is a very great need for such a Measure as this. I cannot say,


speaking from a legal point of view, that I see very much the matter with the Bill. I think it is a very good Bill. With regard to the proviso in Clause 9, it seems to me that, unless you have some sort of definition as to what is meant with reference to rent, it will be very easy for unscrupulous landlords or landladies to evade the Act altogether, I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman could have done other than make the provision he did. The point that strikes me as a lawyer is this: First of all, we are dealing with an emergency. We have to get quick results and to get tribunals able to give quick remedies; therefore to some extent it was probably necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "I am not so much considering the question of an appeal from a Tribunal but, first of all, get a decision." Of course, every case may not be like these atrocious cases that have been read out. There are borderline cases when both sides may think they have something to say for themselves and, broadly speaking, if you have no appeal, everything turns on the various tribunals which the right hon. Gentleman sets up. I do not doubt that his intention is to get the best people possible; therefore there would be really nothing very much to appeal about. In Scotland we have appeals and appeals. We have what is known in the criminal law as the appeal on a stated case. No more useless form of appeal can very well have been thought out, because you have an appeal in law, but the man who decides the facts says to himself if he knows his decision is going to be appealed against, "If I Stated the facts as they ought to be stated, I might look a bit of a fool, so I am going to state them to make myself look as little of a fool as I can." Time and time again I and my brothers at the bar have landed ourselves against a stone wall because we could not get a fair statement of facts from the sheriff or magistrate.

Mr. McNeil: Would the hon. Member explain further? Do I understand that he is criticising the Bench of the country?

Mr. Watt: I should be far from doing anything of the kind. I was speaking rather of our methods of appeal and saying that, great and good as the Bench undoubtedly is in every department, human nature remains the same, and it

would be unnatural to expect a man to state a case as badly as it could be stated against himself. An appeal of that description would not be very much good in this case, because the whole matter is one of fact. The question what the rent should be in any particular circumstance is a question of fact, and therefore eminently suitable for the people to hear the case in the first instance and see the witnesses and decide. Accordingly, if you are to have an appeal that is worth while, it needs to be an appeal where the evidence is before the appellate tribunal, and it should not be restricted to a question of law. At the same time I am inclined to agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) that it would be better to make sure that we are not inflicting any injustice on anyone and that we should have some sort of provision for an appeal, but the evidence should be before the appellate court. Do not let us have this travesty of justifying an appeal on a question of law alone. But the whole matter comes to this. Whether you have an appeal or not, you must have a really first-class tribunal. It is no good for any tribunals to decide anything so far reaching as this question of furnished rents in connection with a Bill which is going to carry us a long time ahead unless they are composed of the best possible people.
That brings me automatically to say this. I noted what the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) said about the intricacies of rent restriction. This is not quite so intricate a Bill as some, nevertheless it seems to me that the whole matter is not one which the ordinary business man, or tradesman if you will, is really trained to deal with. It requires the mind of someone who has had an expert and practical training in legal matters. I certainly say, from no selfish standpoint, that in the interest of justice, and in fairness to all parties concerned, where it is at all possible you want a chairman of one of these tribunals who has legal experience. I know that it has been customary, particularly in Glasgow, to cast aspersions upon the usefulness of the legal profession, although a year or two ago various individual members of the Corporation were, no doubt, grateful for expert legal assistance, and from time to time members of the public generally have found that in the hour of need a friend of the legal pro-


fession is sometimes a friend indeed, and they were generally delighted to pay him before the case started, though sometimes not so delighted when the case finished, but on the whole I have never yet heard that in criminal law the legal profession was regarded as unnecessary. In questions where you have to look through Statutes and wonder what it all means, and where you have not got the right hon. Gentleman always here with his lucid explanations to tell you exactly what they mean, I think the legal profession is of assistance, and, accordingly, I say that the provision regarding the chairmanship should certainly stand, subjected it may be to some modification, because perhaps in the far West it might be difficult to obtain a chairman with the qualifications. But again it all comes down to this: If you have not a great many appeals you could get completely impartial and unbiased men from the East who would with pleasure go to the West of Scotland and see how the landladies in North Ayrshire and Bute are getting on. It is a nice part of the country and there is no need to worry about legal assistance.

Sir C. MacAndrew: I particularly referred to solicitors, who are overworked, and not to advocates, who are not.

Mr. Watt: I do not regard myself as an underworked man, and most of my colleagues think they have enough to do, but, if there are underworked solicitors—I have not yet met one in the East—it might be a good thing to get them into training and operating in the West of Scotland, and on the other hand if you have overworked solicitors, if you can make the conditions reasonably attractive, I believe they will find time to do a little more work and come and help the West of Scotland out of its difficulties. But, seriously, I think you will find that you will get economy of time and much more satisfactory results if you employ legal aid. May I give one instance from my own previous experience of the sort of thing that happens where you do not have legal assistance in matters of this kind?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I hope the hon. Member is not going too much into reminiscences.

Mr. Watt: All I wanted to say was that you may well find that the mind which is not trained according to the laws of evidence picks up some point which is not

evidence and makes it a subject matter of the beginning of a case against a member of the public, and there should be proper guidance from one of these tribunals. In this Bill where such questions as what is a fair rent has to be decided, expert guidance is certainly wanted. Accordingly, unless any strong argument is advanced to the contrary, the Bill should stand.

Mr. Buchanan (Glasgow, Gorbals): I wish to say something on this Measure, because it to a large extent affects the Division I represent. Parts of the City of Glasgow are faced with a serious situation, particularly those parts that used to have what are described as good residential property. In those parts where there were large houses the position has become very acute in recent years. The problem had developed before the war and it has developed further since. Even if it were only for discussion of the problem I would welcome the introduction of this Bill, but no one would say that it presents the golden rule for getting over the difficulties of the situation. The Bill does make some attempt to deal with what is admitted on all hands to be a very difficult problem.
I am not going to discuss Committee points like the question whether the legal profession is the best to be on the tribunals or not. That is a point that can best be dealt with in Committee. Sometimes I have sympathy with the legal profession and at other times I feel that they are about the worst possible bodies. After the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Watt) has spoken I would not give a legal man a place. Yet in the old days, when we had Lord Cooper and legal men of that type in this House, one had a feeling that they contributed something of great importance to a discussion apart from just the legal merits of it. When one goes to hardship committees which are confined almost exclusively to the legal people who preside, one often comes away with a bitterness towards them. I would remind those who attack the legal profession of the recent Hereford case where it was not the legal profession that put them into the mess but the legal profession that took them out of it. One can feel great pride in the legal profession when it defends us against injustice, such as it did in that case. One cannot make


generalisations in these matters, however. We have to deal with the circumstances and I feel open-minded on the issue. I am not an enthusiastic believer in the amateur judge. The Hereford case does not make one too proud of amateur people.
One weakness of this Bill has not been touched on. The machinery is too cumbersome. What I want in connection with a Bill of this kind is some protection for the tenants against eviction, which is their greatest dread. The great fear of these people is that if they make a stand against injustice, they will be thrown out of their houses. If they have protection against eviction without the consent of the court, I am positive that most of the rack renting would disappear. The public have access to the court and if a person is able to go and say that he is to be evicted because he has complained that he is charged an extortionate rent, and proves it, I am certain that the court would see that no eviction was granted. The right hon. Gentleman agrees that that is a real danger, but says that two steps have been taken to meet it. One is that the local authority have power to billet, and the second is that they have power to requisition houses. That is a very cumbersome machine. The kernel of the Bill is not whether a lawyer should be on or not. It is how the tenant is to be protected. It is no use saying to a person that his rent will be safeguarded if he is left open to the greater danger of eviction. A person may complain that he is paying 16s. a week for a shocking place, as most of these places are. We sometimes talk about slums, but slums are nothing to them. I can picture a terrible slum in my Division but it is nothing to these places, because even in a slum, when a person goes in and locks the door, the house is his. In these other places there may be eight different rooms occupied by eight different families and not even a lock on the doors. There is no decency or privacy. If one of the tenants says, "My rent is extortionate, I am going to complain," the moment he whispers that, the moment he says it as a piece of gossip in the Co-operative store or a shop, the owner or the person who lets the house knows and the tenant is turned out.
What protection is there under this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman says there will

be power to billet, but that is no use, because the tenant is out before proceedings are taken. It is a dreadful thing to see these people turned out. I have seen them. I have a great regard for our sheriffs and the courts in many ways for they defend these people, but this is what is happening. You may go down a street in the morning and suddenly see furniture flung into the street. It is a terrible sight. The power to billet will not meet the individual case. The individual will take no step if it is going to endanger him and his family. The other points we can argue out in Committee as Scotsmen usually do with a fair amount of commonsense and reason, but this eviction business is the kernel of the matter. You leave the right to fling out the tenant, but there is little protection for the person who complains.

Mr. Johnston: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view, but will he tell me what is the delay that he envisages in the Act of requisitioning?

Mr. Buchanan: The local authority requisitions—

Mr. Johnston: No, the State.

Mr. Buchanan: Let me try to state a simple case. Take the instance of a street like Abbotsford Place in Glasgow. A woman is paying 16s. a week for a terrible place with no bath or anything. She says that it is a terrible rent and that she is going to the town council to get them to start a complaint. The landlady knows about it, because people talk. Women in these circumstances talk and it is a good thing that they do. The next day the woman finds that she is turned out. Her remedy then is to go to the town council or to the Secretary of State and say, "I have been put out because I threatened to complain," but in the meantime she is without a home. It is no remedy to her for property to be requisitioned after she is on the street. It may be a remedy for somebody in the future, but it is no remedy for that person.
There is one other point which was touched on by the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd). The local authority as I understand it have power to take the initiative in setting up these courts, but the Secretary of State if he cares can settle the matter after consultation. It seems to me that it would be


better if we merely said that the Secretary of State should set up the courts. If they are necessary, they should be set up throughout Scotland. If I have spoken somewhat heatedly about the right of eviction it is because I think it is the only issue in the Bill worth discussing. If a woman, particularly, thinks her children may be turned on to the streets she will do anything rather than risk complaining, unless she is given protection. We must protect her and her children, and unless we can do it in some other way than by this cumbersome way of billeting I do not think the Bill will be the success we want it to be. I appeal to the House and to the Scottish Office to give protection against evictions.

Mr. McNeil: I should like to underline, what the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has just said. I do not want to be thought to be in any sense ungrateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has done, nor do I want it to be suggested that I do not understand how intricate the matter is, because in my right hon. Friend's own phrase it is a manifold and difficult issue. But I know that my right hon. Friend cannot get beyond the position that the necessity for the Bill rests upon the scarcity of houses. People are only willing to pay the sub-rents which my right hon. Friend seeks to control because of the fear of which the hon. Member has just spoken. Unless we can remove that fear I do not think the Bill will control these sub-rents. There are several possible loopholes in the Bill. I take a little pleasure in saying that I am no lawyer. I so often find myself in conflict with my hon. Friend for one of the Edinburgh Divisions who dealt with the provisions of the Bill that I should be discourteous if I did not take this opportunity to say that I agree with him in the eloquent plea he put up, only on this side of the House we usually dismiss that eloquence with a simple phrase: we call it "trade union solidarity"; and even when I disagree with the grounds of the argument I should always have respect to such an honest opinion so eloquently uttered. There are several points on which I hope the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply will give us some guidance before we come to the Committee Stage. The hon. and gallant Member for North Ayr and Bute (Sir C. MacAndrew) has already

referred to sub-section (2) of Clause 9. It contains a curious phrase:
Unless the value of such board to the tenant forms a substantial part of the whole rent.
Why does it not say "the price of the board," if that is what is means? Why the word "value"? I suggest that if a tenant-in-chief has two possible subtenants in a queue—and in the districts where this tribunal will operate there will not be two but 20 or possibly 200 in the queue for each sub-tenancy—he will say to them: "The rent in the register is Ins. but I am prepared to offer a cup of tea in the morning; will you two make an offer for the price of the cup of tea?" Of course, that is an oversimplification of the position, but it is an indication of what would occur in my Division, or in that of the hon. Member for Gorbals, because people are desperate for a room. What is the law officer going to say if the rent is 10s. and the seven cups of tea per week, of no determined strength, without sugar and without milk, are to be listed at 7s.? Is that a legal charge? Apparently the tribunal is not asked to say what should be charged for the food, the phrase being "the value of such board to the tenant." The tenant himself might go before the tribunal and in an effort to retain the accommodation say, "I do not consider I am being over-charged." What would be the position if the local authority initiated an action and the tenant-in-chief brought along the sub-tenant, whose only concern is to save himself from being put into the street, to say, "I do not think I am being over-charged for the tea"? I take it that my learned Friend will have to say that it would not be within the competence of this tribunal under Subsection (2). I have had private conversations with my hon. Friend on this subject and still I am not clear what is meant by Clause 2, and I would not raise it if it were not important to try to establish what will be within the jurisdiction of these tribunals.
Sub-section (1, a) of Clause 3 says:
On account of rent for those premises in respect of any period subsequent to the date of such entry, payment of any sum in excess of the rent so entered.
What troubles me is that the tribunal may fix a rent and the tenant-in-chief may go back to the sub-tenant and say "Out.
Our contract is finished." He may then either add or remove a stick of furniture, and, as I understand the answer given by my right hon. Friend, he may eventually be brought back to court, though it is not obligatory to go back immediately. He may also say to the sub-tenant "Are you prepared to pay an additional 5s. for this additional chair?" and if he is not he will get another sub-tenant who will pay. Under Sub-section (2) of Clause 7 there is another difficulty to which my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) has referred. How is the tribunal going to prove what secret agreements there may be unless the sub-tenant is prepared to give evidence; and I say, and I am sure my right hon. Friend does not disagree with me, that if the position is desperate enough in any neighbourhood the sub-tenant will go before the tribunal to give evidence in favour of the tenant-in-chief? My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals said that if a woman dared to speak in a shop or in a queue and her statements filtered back to the tenant-in-chief there would be an eviction. Frequently it will be found to be the wretched and horrible truth that the person who went to the tenant-in-chief to say that the tenant was complaining was some poor, desperate wretch who was trying to elbow another equally desperate woman out of her sub-tenancy.
I cannot stress too strongly how dreadful the position is, and I do not think I need do so, because it is this position which has driven the right hon. Gentleman to bring this Bill before the House. He seems to make two replies to this point—one I take second-hand from the hon. Member for Gorbals. He apparently assumes that local authorities have the power to billet. I am afraid that I do not know of this. I know the local authority has power to billet if a person has been dispossessed of a home through being bombed out even though it apparently does not put that power into operation for a sub-tenant bombed out, but it is quite new to me to learn that the Scottish Office are billeting. It is equally new to me to learn that the Scottish Office are prepared to requisition. I know of no case in which the Scottish Office has done it.

Mr. Johnston: I said they had power to.

Mr. McNeil: That is quite a different matter and I think I have a right to ask some questions. If the Ministry have the power to requisition why has this mess arisen? My right hon. Friend delegated to local authorities the right to requisition, and we were grateful when he did so, but it has not worked, and he knows that it has not worked, because the local authority represents local people. In my own Division, and this is not an isolated experience, the local authority have proposed to requisition this or that house which my right hon. Friend has approved as suitable, but the owners or tenants-in-chief have a right to appear before the local authority, and the local authority an elected body, had to safeguard their position, and the requisitioning of several approved houses was never proceeded with. I have not explored this new position, because until the Debate started I had not heard the suggestion that the Ministry could requisition. If they can requisition is there not a possibility of my right hon. Friend requisitioning and then asking the tenant-in-chief to act as his agent at an agreed rent, as a rent fixed by the tribunal? I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who knew he had these powers, has not explored the position.

Mr. Johnston: The Bill is not passed yet.

Mr. McNeil: No, but my right hon. Friend, with his usual zealousness—and I do not mean anything other than I say—has gone to great lengths to try to ensure that this Bill shall be passed. He has been engaged in consultations on the subject for four months now, and I congratulate him on the pains he takes, but it is no reply to my suggestion to say that the Bill is not yet passed. My right hon. Friend knew he had these powers, but I can say without undue vanity, though I have kept abreast of this subject, that this is the first time, I think, that he has disclosed to the House that he had these powers. Am I wrong?

Mr. Johnston: There is no mystery about it. The policy up to now has been to delegate these powers to local authorities. The power of requisitioning has been given to Ministers of the Crown, and it may be exercised by Ministers of the Crown, but up to now powers have been delegated to local authorities.

Mr. McNeil: My experience drives me to the conclusion that there would have been more requisitioning if the Ministry had operated these powers, because of the difficulties in which local authorities have found themselves. The second point is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact. I think, therefore, that my right hon. Friend might have considered how he could marry that power to this Bill. It does not seem any protection to the sub-tenant who is out on the pavement to know that the local authority may then requisition. It would have been a very great and a much bigger deterrent than the £100 fine if that power had been embodied in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman should have inserted in the Bill the obligatory operation that, wherever such an offence took place and was proved, not by the cumbersome process of law, but by simple appearance before a tribunal. The Scottish Office in these circumstances would then requisition that property. That would have been a sufficient deterrent and would lead the subtenant to believe that he had a protection, which, I say, he does not enjoy under the Bill. Obviously, I would not oppose the Bill but I hope that I have made plain my point of view. I know the difficulties with which the Secretary of State for Scotland has wrestled, but I would be dishonest if I did not say that I think the Bill leaves such loopholes that unscrupulous owners or tenants will find a way through it, that there is no protection for the sub-tenant and that the Bill will therefore fail in its main object of protecting him.

Mrs. Hardie: I do not intend to say very much, as most of the points I had in mind have been dealt with. I think the Bill will do some good. I am not going to find fault with the Secretary of State for Scotland for trying to remedy an evil simply because he does not at the same time do other things that I may want even more. The passing of the Bill will prevent people from overcharging so much by the fear that they may be brought before a tribunal. I hope that the Bill will have a good effect. I recognise that it is difficult to legislate for everybody who tries to cheat. Some of us were beginning to hope that human nature was getting a little better, but it does not look very much like it when we are presented with

such a picture of demoralisation in the carrying-on of property. The landlord exploits the builder, and the builder exploits the tenant, and now we have a picture of the tenant exploiting other tenants. It all puts me in mind of the story of the parasites, one living upon the other until we got down to the very lowest stage.
The demoralising part of it is that people do not seem to do anything unless they can get a profit out of it. I agree that in one respect the position in housing may be made worse by limiting the profit that a man can take when he lets off part of his house. If they do not make a profit, a good many people just will.not let at all. Even the power to requisition will not affect the matter. Many of these people are already living in disgraceful and overcrowded conditions. I know some of the houses to which the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) referred. They are big old-fashioned houses whose population went west. They were left pretty derelict. There is another class of persons who live in a two- or three-apartment house. They let one of the rooms and are content to pig it in the kitchen. If you say to them, "You are only to charge 5s. for the room when you let it," those people will probably not think it worth while to let the room, and they will turn the people out with no place for them to go. The question of requisitioning is not quite a simple matter. You could not requisition those houses, whose occupants should not be allowed to take people in if they were living under normal conditions. Again, you cannot requisition one house simply because the occupiers had been letting before, without requisitioning all the other houses, including those where people are living in a four-five- or six-apartment house. Before people can be given any security the question of requisitioning must be gone into on a wider basis.
It was a mistake to limit requisitioning to the local authority. I am always in favour of giving power to local authorities, but there are not many houses in Glasgow that could be requisitioned, because most of them are let up. Glasgow Corporation have no power to requisition the houses outside their boundary, and local authorities outside the boundary may not desire to have undesirable Glasgow people coming into their areas. The Scottish


Office will have to take different methods, and make the Bill wider.
On the question of children being refused, I am the last person in the world not to have consideration for children, but after all, if somebody lets one room in a house to a couple, that is very different from letting it to a family. We ought to have some consideration and not force a family into a part of a house. I read in a Glasgow paper where a woman was complaining that the landlady of the room she occupied objected to her child making a noise in the middle of the day because the landlady's husband was on a night shift and slept through the day. After all, the man has to have his rest. The whole thing is wrong and follows upon families living in a divided house. There was a case of a young couple who took a room. A baby was arriving, and the young woman was told she would have to go. I was very sorry for the woman, but I could see the landlord's position. The whole thing comes back to the shocking shortage of houses. Something more drastic will have to be done. We may have to commandeer all the houses in existence and space the rooms out, as they do in Russia. I hate it myself, because I do not like to share a house with anybody, but I think that something further will have to be done in that connection. I realise the difficulties of the Secretary of State, but this is not the worst evil in Scotland. Instead of starting with the sub-tenant, it would have been better to have started at the top and to have dealt with the landlord, who is the chief criminal so far as housing is concerned.

Mr. Gallacher: Last week the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), supported by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan), raised a very important question on Scottish housing but received very little satisfaction. I think every intelligent Member in the House, and I believe also the Scottish Secretary, is perturbed at the crisis that exists in connection with the evil housing conditions in Scotland and would agree that it is one of the most serious problems facing Scotland. It is at the bottom of many of our problems of health, such as tuberculosis. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) said that the Secretary of State for Scotland had a habit of meeting all

kinds of critics and disarming them before he brought in a Bill; the hon. Member does not appear to understand the process. The Secretary of State meets critics of a Bill, and they disarm him in regard to almost everything that he does. As a result, when we get anything from the Secretary of State for Scotland it is already filleted.
Take the proposition he brought in regarding requisitioning. He did so at a time when there was a most terrific problem of refugees who were all crowding into the big cities after the blitzes. He decided that local authorities should have power to requisition, but the authorities where great masses of people were coming in could find few or no houses to requisition, while local authorities with houses to requisition were not troubled with overburdened populations. There are certainly houses in Glasgow that could be requisitioned, but round about upon the outskirts of Glasgow there are any number of big houses that ought to be requisitioned. This matter ought not to be left to local authorities; the Secretary of State for Scotland should requisition every house in the country.
We read in the first Clause of the Bill:
Where the Secretary of State is satisfied upon representation by, or after consultation with, the council of any county or burgh.
he may do certain things. What does that mean? In my copy of the Bill I scored out those words. I am of opinion that the Clause should say that when the Secretary of State for Scotland is satisfied that it is expedient, provisions of that kind should have effect in any area, consisting of the whole or part of any county or burgh and so on. The Secretary of State should get on with the job. Never mind about making a consultation. There is not a county council, city council, or town council anywhere but this principle should be put into operation right away. In every part of Scotland this power should be operated by the Secretary of State. Every area should be brought under the Act.
I am not going to criticise the law courts. It is true that in many cases, particularly on appeals, you get very fair judgment from the law courts. I have never had any fair judgment myself, but I know others who have. What happens in the law courts is beside the point. What we are faced


with is the fact that whenever any appeals of any kind are considered we are told that the chairman of the tribunal must be a solicitor. The lawyers have got a grip of everything. They are like some great black octopus, with tentacles everywhere. I do not object to a solicitor being chairman of a tribunal, but what we should lay down is that every chairman of a tribunal should be an honest man. That does not of necessity rule out a solicitor, but to say that the chairman must be a solicitor is an imposition on the people of the country. There is no reason whatever why this special trade union should be able to hold on to all these positions. I remember reading a long time ago in "Old Curiosity Shop" the passage in which a lawyer says to Daniel Quilp, "Give me a glass of water," and Quilp expresses his disdain as he exclaims, "What? Water for a lawyer? Molten metal for a lawyer." The Scottish Secretary seems to believe in molten metal for the lawyers but after it has passed through the mint.
It is quite obvious to some of us that the Secretary of State for Scotland is getting into the evil hands of "our noble families" and the legal fraternity.

Mr. Kirkwood: "Ah, Tam! ah, Tam! thou'll get thy fairin'!"

Mr. Gallacher: That is so. We all remember seeing another right hon. Gentleman standing at that Box. I have never seen anyone expand so much as he did. He seemed to grow before our eyes into such a mighty man. His name was Thomas. The other side sucked him dry and then threw him out. They tell me he is on relief now. I would warn the right hon. Gentleman not to allow himself to be utilised by these very questionable elements in Scotland.
What we are anxious to do, and what the Bill should be concerned in doing, is to provide the very best conditions possible for the masses of working men and women in the big cities. It is always the working men and women who are affected. Surely the Secretary of State, with all his knowledge of the history of Scotland and the part played by the working class of Scotland, will not hesitate to admit that in all questions of this kind some of the very best men to act as chairmen of tribunals would be representatives

of the trade unions or representatives of the co-operative movement who have such close contact with the lives of the working class.
I want to emphasise the point about the scarcity of housing as the basic question, because I want to suggest another change in the Bill. Exception was taken by the hon. and gallant Member for North Ayrshire (Colonel MacAndrew) to the fact that Clause 10 (2) of the Bill provides:
This Act shall continue in force until the expiry of six months from the date when the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, ceases to be in force.
I cannot understand why that period of six months should be put in the Bill. The Bill is introduced because there are masses of people suffering from injustice. There would be no sense in bringing in the Bill if it was not an effort to remedy that. The injustice arises because there are nothing like sufficient houses in Scotland. Yet six months after the war is over you will go back from justice to injustice. How can anybody justify that? If this Bill represents a measure of justice in a situation where there is the extraordinary exploitation of the needs of families, surely that measure of justice will be required when the war is finished just as it is required when the war is going on.
We have had much discussion outside the House about what is going to happen when the war is over. Some leaders of one or other of the parties suggest, and rightly suggest, that the controls which are so valuable now should continue when the war is over, but others come along and suggest that we want to get rid of the controls and get back to the dear old days of private enterprise as soon as possible. We are to go back to the system that brought us derelict areas, mass unemployment and mass starvation. Here in this Bill we get capitulation to the anti-planners, capitulation to the evil forces that want to see us back where we were when the war started, back to the opportunity for robbery and exploitation. I would like whoever speaks in this Debate to face up to this question. Is it the case that this desperate situation has arisen because of the lack of houses in Scotland? If it has arisen because of the lack of houses, then I suggest to the Secretary of State that the Sub-section which I have just quoted should read something like


this: "This Act shall continue in force until adequate houses have been provided so that exploitation in the matter of rents can be avoided." There is no justification for the machinery of this Measure being withdrawn until the basic cause of the trouble—the lack of houses—has been removed. Therefore I suggest that when we come to the Committee stage the Government ought to accept an Amendment to ensure the continuance of the Act. Like others who have spoken, I give a welcome to the Bill. We will do our utmost to strengthen it in the Committee stage, and I hope that the Secretary of State when we reach the Committee stage will be amenable to reason.

Mr. Sloan: I should not like this Debate to come to an end without offering my thanks to the Secretary of State for introducing this Bill. It is not the Bill I would have liked to have seen, but it is a step in the right direction if it can at all rectify the unhappy state we have fallen into and put an end to the ramp that has taken place in sub-letting. Like other hon. Members, I am a little concerned about the permissive Clause. It is always a little disquieting to me when legislation is introduced to find that it is provided that where the Secretary of State, after consultation with other people, thinks it is expedient to bring the Act into force he may make an order directing that it shall have effect. We have heard about the property owners of the past. Some of their descendants are not very much better, and many still control the county councils. If it is left to them, they will not ask for the powers that are given in this Bill. Why we cannot have an Act that shall have effect in all burghs and counties it is very difficult to understand.
This sub-letting business is not confined to Glasgow. Whenever Scottish matters are discussed in this House we always hear a lot of talk about Glasgow, as if Glasgow was Scotland. As a matter of fact, I seriously doubt whether Glasgow is in Scotland. At any rate, there is a fairly large part of Scotland outside Glasgow, and I think the most progressive sections of the community are not to be found in that hovel called Glasgow. I live in a part of the country where this exploitation has gone on unchecked for many years before the war. As has been

already stated, housing scarcity has always played into the hands of those prepared to make money out of that state of affairs. The county of Ayr is very attractive, and that fact brings many people to our locality. It is a two-edged sword. First of all it affects the people who come into the county to get rest and health and recreation, because they are exploited by people who have accommodation to offer. That in itself would be bad, but the effect of it is to exploit the people who have to live there permanently. There is nothing so sad as people who have lived for eight or nine months in rooms being informed that they have to get out willy-nilly to make room for the people who are coming, who will naturally be expected to pay more money. So it affects both sections of the community. It affects those who come down and those who are permanent residents in the area. Living accommodation cannot be had in Ayrshire to-day for love, and it certainly cannot be had without a great deal of money. It is a problem which has to be faced very seriously in our area.
The question of housing is of course at the root of the whole business, but I wonder upon what basis these tribunals are to work when they are set up. On what general lines are they to work, what is the scope of their operation and what is the datum line to be fixed with regard to the question of rent? Is there to be any flat-rate rent that the tribunal can fix, or is there to be any general instruction issued as to how they are to work? Otherwise I cannot see how the tribunal is to be the success which it is expected to be in this Bill. And what is to constitute a furnished house or furnished rooms? The most difficult and degrading thing about the whole business is that some rooms which are let as furnished rooms contain no furniture. A bedstead or a wash basin or something stuck in a corner is the way some persons concerned get out of their liabilities under the Rent Restrictions Acts by letting rooms as furnished apartments. Is there to be any amount fixed or any standard fixed, before premises can be termed furnished apartments or a furnished house? On what basis is payment to be assessed for furnished houses? I should like to know whether the Secretary of State could tell us whether a house is to be taken at its value or valuation and


a portion that is lopped off for the subtenant is to be valued in accordance with that principle. Then are you to take the furnishings that are in the house and place a value upon these, so that the tribunal will be able to arrive at some decision as to what should be paid as rent for these sub-let houses? There is nothing in the Bill to guide us. I cannot find any indication in the Bill as to how the thing is to operate. Surely from whoever is to reply we should have some sort of guidance, something that would indicate how these tribunals are to act.
I have heard something said about the powers of requisitioning houses. There has been no attempt made to requisition. At the week-end, I think it was, we saw the results in some of the Sunday papers. I am not sure as to the figures. Powers were given to the Corporation of Aberdeen, I think it was, to requisition, They requisitioned 32 houses that had been unoccupied since the war or certainly after the war began. Immediately notice was given of requisitioning 30 of those concerned came scurrying back to occupy their houses, although they have been probably in. Ayrshire, where we have a good number of evacuees, while retaining houses in Aberdeen. Is this sort of thing to be tolerated, and how in the name of goodness are we to overcome these difficulties other than by a Bill which lays down the fundamentals on which this subletting shall be done?
I have no faith whatever in this statement that the chairman of the tribunal shall be a solicitor or an advocate. It does not appear to me to be a question of law at all but a question of common sense, and if the local authorities are able to get powers to acquire sites, build houses, let houses, fix the rents, conduct the whole business of house letting on an enormous scale, surely out of the ranks of those people can be discovered people who are the type of person able to be chairman of a tribunal such as this. It is not a question of law at all but a question of arriving at a decision as to the fair rent which should be paid for part of a house which has been sub-let. In spite of my criticism, I am glad to see the first steps taken in this Bill, but I hope that when it comes to the Committee stage the Secretary of State will be able to meet many of the criticisms which have been made here to-

day and will be prepared to accept many of the suggestions which have been made in the Debate by hon. Members.

Mr. McLean Watson: One thing about which there has been no question to-day is that there has been a ramp, especially during the period of the war, with regard to furnished lodgings or furnished apartments or furnished rooms. It has arisen mainly during the war although, as has already been said, it existed before the war, but before the war it was prevalent only in very well defined areas and for very understandable reasons. But since the war began we have had so much shifting of population from one part of the country to another that there has been overcrowding in certain areas. It is due to the fact that ordinary tenants of houses who would never have troubled themselves with lodgers or sub-tenants in the years before the war either have been induced or have thought it right to allow part of their houses to be used by lodgers or sub-tenants, and we have had during the period of the war charges made for that accommodation absolutely out of all reason.
From what the Secretary of State said in his opening speech to-day I have some doubt as to whether we should allow this Bill, when it comes to the Committee stage, to continue in its permissive form, for a local authority to be able to put this Measure into operation and to set up the tribunal or to allow the local authority after consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland, or the Secretary of State after consultation with the local authority, to set up a tribunal. That would be all very well if this thing of which we complain and for which we are seeking a remedy was limited to special areas in Scotland. The Secretary of State in his own statement drew attention to cases where scandalous rents. were being charged for furnished apartments even in rural areas—and rural areas far removed from industrial areas. If that is the position, if this is going on more or less over the whole of Scotland, I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should refuse to look at this matter again and see whether there cannot be general application of this Measure, that it should apply to the country generally. I can quite understand the attitude of the Secretary of State if there are areas in the country where it would be absolutely un-


necessary to set up these tribunals, but if as he says these extortionate rents are being charged for furnished apartments in rural areas, it seems to me that the case for either a limited or partial application of this Measure to Scotland is gone and that it should be applied to Scotland generally.
I have listened with considerable interest to the discussion which has taken place with regard to the effects of this Bill on those who are occupying these furnished apartments. It is said that if a sub-tenant complains about the rent that is charged, before that sub-tenant knows where he is, he will be on the street, he will be evicted from these furnished lodgings, and there is nothing to prevent it. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was very emphatic on that point. The answer the Secretary of State gave was that he had power to requisition property if that should happen. I hope that when the Lord Advocate comes to reply he will face up to this point with regard to the power to requisition. One is required to keep in mind in connection with the house from which that sub-tenant is to be evicted that the tenant is only a tenant of the house and not the owner of the house; the owner of the house is somebody else. It seems to me that the difficulty the right hon. Gentleman will have in requisitioning is that he is to requisition property because of something that a tenant has done, and the tenant has no control over the property at all; the tenant is merely a tenant in that property. He is the cause of the trouble by evicting the sub-tenant, but the property does not belong to the tenant, it belongs to somebody else. I hope the Lord Advocate will tell us how in these circumstances it would be possible to requisition property which does not belong to the man who has evicted the sub-tenant from the house.
The Secretary of State mentioned a case at Rosyth. I hope that the Lord Advocate will be able to clear up the point which I raised. The Secretary of State said that it was a council house. At Rosyth almost all the houses are owned by the Scottish National Housing Council, on behalf of the Admiralty, whose employees have first claim on those houses. It is true that in a very small part of Rosyth there is a number of council houses, and I wonder whether the par-

ticular house to which the Secretary of State referred is in fact a council house or a house coming under the control of his own Department. Because of complaints about excessive rents for sub-lets, the Rosyth Town Council were compelled to change their policy. Before the war they were building houses as fast as they possibly could. They made a rule that there was to be no sub-letting in council houses. Because of the influx of population to Rosyth, they had to change their policy and allow sub-letting. Then came complaints of excessive rents for the sub-let rooms. Some time ago the town council laid it down that not more than 10s. a week could be charged for any room sublet in a council house; so if 25s. is being charged, as the Secretary of State said, I would like to know whether that is going on under the town council or under the Department for which the right hon. Gentleman has some responsibility. At any rate, the town council have done their best to prevent profiteering or exploitation in their houses. Even in my area, although there may not have been many complaints, it is true that there has been a certain amount of extortionate charging for sub-let property, because of the great demand. This shows the difficulty facing a local authority at present, without additional powers. Something more is required, and I welcome this Bill, because it sets up machinery to deal with the situation.
I agree that it is unnecessary to have lawyers as chairmen of these tribunals. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) has said, we have publicly elected representatives of the people on local authorities; and these are not the only people capable of taking part in public life. If, as he says, we have members of our local authorities who can site houses, build houses, equip houses, fix rents and do all the rest of the work in connection with the housing of the people, some of these individuals could become chairmen of these tribunals, especially as each tribunal will have a clerk who, in all likelihood, will have some legal knowledge, and perhaps a knowledge also of building, furnishing, and that sort of thing. I think we can man these tribunals in Scotland with perfect satisfaction in that way. The tribunal will have before it the rent of the whole house, and the first thing it will have to decide is the amount which


ought to be paid for a room in that house. Apart from that, it will have to assess the value of the furnishings. What is there about that which requires a great amount of legal knowledge. It might be necessary in some cases, but I think these tribunals could be
well constituted with men and women—because I think a woman would have as much knowledge of the value of furnishings as a man would have—without appointing legal gentlemen. But even if we have to accept the lawyers as chairmen, I welcome this Measure and the setting up of the tribunals, as a means of getting rid of this difficulty. It is a difficulty which may be with us for some time. It is possible that six months after the close of hostilities, or after the Emergency Powers Measures have been withdrawn, we shall have to continue this Measure. We may have,to continue it until sufficient houses have been erected to make sub-letting largely unnecessary. This trouble 'has arisen because populations have been shifted in excessive numbers during the war. Possibly, when the war ends, a large part of these populations will go back or will scatter, but if they remain where they are we may have to keep the Measure in operation for much longer than is proposed in the Bill. That is a matter to be considered when the time arrives. I welcome the Bill; and I hope that, in Committee, the Secretary of State will be prepared to consider reasonable Amendments, and that we shall get an instrument to rid us of this grievance which has troubled so many of our people in Scotland for such a long time.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): Many hon. Members have said that the reason for the necessity of this Bill is the shortage of homes. That is perfectly true, and there is really no satisfactory solution except the provision of new houses in adequate numbers. But that will take a long time. We must do something to cover the intervening period. Every hon. Member who has addressed the House to-day has agreed that we must do something; we cannot leave things where they are. One or two hon. Members have suggested that parts of this Bill go rather too far, but on the whole the criticism has been that we have not gone far enough. The reason is that we had to consider whether it was better to make an elaborate

and comprehensive scheme or to introduce the simplest possible scheme and to get it through in the shortest possible time, covering up the obvious loopholes, but not trying to be too elaborate. Wisely, I think, we chose the latter alternative. We have produced the simplest Bill which seemed to be at all adequate to meet the situation. Most hon. Members have agreed that we could hardly have done anything else. Therefore, I do not think I need take time to-day in saying anything about the general principles of the Measure; I will restrict myself to answering specific questions put forward in the Debate. I shall take them, as far as I can, in the order in which they were asked.
The first was from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Ayrshire (Sir C. MacAndrew). He asked, "Why do you fix a time limit of six months after the emergency period?" The answer is that that was the time limit fixed in 1939 for the Rent Restrictions Acts, and that it highly desirable that when a review of those Acts is made—and hon. Members are aware that a Committee is being set tip for that purpose—those Acts and this should come to an end together, so that the future, whatever it may be, of this whole chapter of legislation may be considered as one. A great deal has been said about the desirability or otherwise of having lawyers as the chairmen of tribunals. My right hon. Friend has been impressed by what has been said during the Debate, and by representations which he has received, and we are prepared to look into the matter with a view to introducing an Amendment making it possible to appoint any properly-qualified person to the office of chairman. I have no doubt that a good many of the chairmen will be lawyers, appointed on their merits, but I think there is a good deal to be said, particularly in respect of outlying areas, for not being too limited in the choice of chairmen; therefore, these suggestions will be very sympathetically examined, and an Amendment may be proposed. Then came the only two suggestions that the scope of the Bill might be slightly narrowed. Both came from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Ayrshire. One was about board, and the other was that not all types of lessee should get the benefit of this legislation. It would be so difficult to distinguish between one lessee and another that we see no possibility of, and no justice in, making that distinction.
On the question of board, I would say a little more. The present scheme—which we think is the right scheme—in Clause 9, is broadly that where a substantial amount of board is provided by the landlady, there should be no control. Control in such circumstances would be extremely difficult. But where either no board is provided or only an insubstantial amount, there should be control. That is the meaning of the Clause as it stands. It is asked, what is the meaning of "insubstantial"?

Mr. Maclean: Who is to decide what is substantial and what is insubstantial board?

The Lord Advocate: I was just coming to that. The next question is, What is meant by insubstantial, and who determines it? It is determined by the tribunal, if it comes before them. How do they determine it? People generally know whether they have had a substantial meal or not. You have to look at what has been happening during the let, since it began. It may have been going on for weeks or months. The tribunal will be informed what, day in day out, the landlord or landlady has provided. Is it early morning tea, or breakfast or supper, or what is it? There is no question of the parties being able to put a price upon it. The committee, as sensible men and women, will say, "We have heard the kind of meal it is. What is this, broadly speaking, worth to the tenant? What would be a fair value to put upon it from the tenant's point of view?" You compare that with the rent for the week and decide whether the amount to be attributed to board is a substantial proportion. I do not think that we should lay it down whether the percentage should be 7, 10s, 12 or 20 per cent., but leave it to the commonsense of the tribunal to say whether in their view such and such a value which they attribute to the board from the tenant's point of view is or is not substantial compared with the whole rent. No doubt people with commonsense will decide that without any difficulty.

Mr. Gallacher: This is rather a dangerous point. Is it the amount of food or the amount of charge that is made that is to determine whether it is substantial?

The Lord Advocate: I thought that I specially made it clear. The amount of charge has nothing to do with it. It is the amount of food and the value of the food to the tenant. What the tribunal has to do, having acquainted itself with what is generally provided, is to say, "What would be the value of this to this tenant?" You cannot get it down to the nearest sixpence but you can decide the broad view of the question.

Mr. McNeil: Why then use the word "value"? I see the difficulty, but why should we not have the amount or the number of meals rather than the value? Surely, if it is value, the court is going to say what sum is spent on food?

Mr. Mathers: Is it not that the Lord Advocate is saying that in fact the taking of rooms at the seaside, with board included, for a week or a fortnight in summer-time is practically excluded from the provisions of the Bill? That, I understand, is what he is saying.

The Lord Advocate: Certainly, if there is full board provided, there can be no doubt at all. Nobody would say that that was not substantial. Probably if it was half-board, the value of that would be substantial in comparison with the amount of rent. Accordingly, most houses of the character of summer-letting are excluded by reason of the board from the Bill but when you come to border-line cases of the kind the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) has in mind the word "value" is the best word to use. We want to get away from prices fixed by the parties which may be fixed with an ulterior object. The landlady may want to put up the apparent value by putting up the price and thereby getting the let outwith control. What we want to do is to get down to the facts of the situation. It is not the amount of food, the weight of it or the number of loaves of bread but the value of the food which is the true criterion, and the value not for the landlady but to the person who is going to eat it. Accordingly, it seems that this is the best way of getting down to the real facts and seeing whether it is a furnished let or a let with board.
The next question was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) and also by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). How do cases come before the tribunal,


and on whose complaint? It is made clear in Clause 2 that either the lessee or the local authority can raise the matter. A diligent local authority is in a position to hear a good deal through its officers about what is going on. I have no doubt that a very large proportion of lets at extravagant sums will one way or another come to the knowledge of the local authority if the local authority chooses to keep its eyes and ears open. We think that that is a proper method of approach to the tribunal. That raises another matter. Why do we take the local authority with us in the initial stage in Clause I before making an Order? It is because in this, as in so many other matters, if the local authority is co-operating, the Measure is likely to work well. If the local authority does not want the Measure in its area, it is not at all likely to work well and probably not worth extending to the area in such circumstances. If the local authority does not like the Measure it is not going to put up complaints.

Mr. Stephen: Does that mean that the people in the particular area are to have no protection because they happen to have a reactionary local authority?

The Lord Advocate: No, Sir, my right hon. Friend has the responsibility to make an Order, but he must consult the local authority. The attitude of the local authority seems to be an important and relevant consideration in weighing up the pros and cons of putting the control into operation.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) raised the question of whether complaint should be allowed a long time after the parties had gone into occupation. That would be inevitable in the case of existing tenancies. Unless you are to rule existing tenancies out of the scope of the Measure altogether, you cannot put a time limit on the complaint. A complaint can only occur when the Bill becomes an Act, and we do not see any reason for excluding a case of overcharge merely because the bargain has been going on for a long time. That being so, there seems to be less reason for putting on any kind of time limit with regard to future bargains. We are not at all convinced that that would be desirable.
With regard to the question of an appeal from the tribunal, as I said a few

moments ago we want to have the simplest possible scheme, and an appeal would certainly complicate the scheme very materially. We do not think that it is the kind of position on which an appeal would be of very great value. Let us say that the Tribunal's figure for rent was 30s. and that the appeal on one side would be for 35s. or, on the other hand, that it should be 25s. It is not a question of reversing a Court's decision but of modifying, and probably only slightly, the figure reached by the tribunal in the first instance. The tribunal to which an appeal would have to be taken would necessarily be a tribunal less well acquainted with the conditions in the neighbourhood, and if the appeal tribunal had to inspect for itself, the amount of travelling it would have to undertake would be very great indeed. I am not a bit worried by the fact that there may not be uniformity. The tribunal will judge of the circumstances of the case, and one of the circumstances certainly will be the average of rent in that particular area. I am sure that there are different levels of rents in different areas in Scotland for similar accommodation. Therefore, there will not be complete uniformity in this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) wanted a compulsory register. We want simplicity, and to build up a compulsory register in present circumstances would be an elaborate and long business. It may turn out to be that further steps are necessary in order to achieve satisfactory results. This Bill is not necessarily the last word, but we prefer to go at a rate which we think we can manage rather than introduce rather elaborate legislation which may cause more embarrassment. Certainly we cannot amend or overrule the Rent Restrictions Acts in this Bill, but we are trying to deal with the cases which do not come within the scope of existing control. We did not adopt the remedy suggested by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) of giving security of tenure largely for this reason. If a person, when letting furnished premises, and particularly part of a house, knows that the tenant may get security of tenure, the landlady will be very much less willing to let. Nothing is more likely to dry up the flow of accommodation of this character than the knowledge on the part of prospective lessors that they may be


saddled with a tenant they do not like under security of tenure. Therefore, we do not think that it would be desirable to enact security of tenure in this Bill.

Mr. Buchanan: Is that the only reason?

The Lord Advocate: That is one of the reasons.

Mr. Buchanan: A person may have paid the rent regularly, and then suddenly one morning the landlady may not like the tenant, and the tenant and children may be turned into the street. Is that the only reason?

The Lord Advocate: No, I am trying to put forward what seemed to me to be the chief reason. After all, the purpose of all this litigation is to get house room for people who need it. What we must avoid at all costs is dissuading potential lessors from making their accommodation available to lessees. We cannot compel people to let, and if we put so many obstacles in the way of people who do let, we shall dry up the source of house room we have at present, and we must be careful about that. That in itself is a good reason for not adopting security of tenure in this case.

Mr. McNeil: May I suggest that the bulk of cases to whom these tribunals will apply are business sub-lets, cases concerning people who have acquired properties for the specific purpose of subletting? It is a business. I share the Lord Advocate's fears about a tenant who sub-lets almost as a measure of good will. It is not my experience that that type of tenant charges an extortionate rent. It is these business sub-letters. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that he could requisition, but I suggest that he has not met my point.

Mr. Maclean: Suppose a tenant complains to a tribunal about excessive rent, and the rent in thereby reduced. What protection is there for a tenant being allowed to remain in the house and not being ordered out at the earliest moment by the landlord?

The Lord Advocate: The first line of protection is that if the landlord does order him out, he cannot get any more from the tenant's successor. You can put out a tenant you do not like, but you can get no financial gain out of it,

and we think that on the whole people will be less inclined to put out one tenant for the sake of getting another at no higher rent. The second thing is power of requisitioning or billeting. If it is found that the person who has taken a house is being turned out unreasonably and improperly it is open to the Secretary of State or, if he delegates his powers to the local authority, then to the local authority to requisition and put the dispossessed person in under those powers. Similarly, there are extensive powers of billeting, and if somebody is put out, these powers may very well fit the situation. I think the hon. Member for Gorbals was exaggerating a little when he spoke of people being turned out on the streets next morning.

Mr. Buchanan: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman never seen it?

The Lord Advocate: It does happen, hut it should not happen. It should not happen, because everybody who is a weekly tenant is entitled to a week's notice, and accordingly, although the landlord can if he so desires give a week's notice to go, he cannot under any circumstances put an unwilling tenant out of the door on to the street. That is the point. There is at least a week in which to invoke the assistance of the local authority or the Department.

Mr. Buchanan: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman know what has happened? Police have pleaded for tenants and have been told to get about their business.

Mr. Speaker: We are not in Committee now. We are really debating what might be more suitable for an Amendment on the Committee stage than for a Second Reading Debate.

The Lord Advocate: I hope I have made plain the position. I have explained what the alternative protections against eviction are. First, that you cannot profiteer; second, that if you evict unreasonably there are very extensive powers in the hands of the Secretary of State to combat that by requisitioning or billeting. I think further details might be left to the
Committee stage.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock asked one or two further


questions. The only one I have not mentioned is one about Clause 3 (1, a). I would like to make it clear that once a rent is fixed by a tribunal and registered in respect of the particular accommodation, that rent cannot be exceeded lawfully without going back to the tribunal for authority. It is no use putting in more furniture or supplying more services. That does not entitle the landlord to take more rent unless he goes back to the tribunal and says, "The circumstances have altered; I want to be authorised to put the rent up." The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) wanted to know about a case that was mentioned. I am told it arose in Townhill, and as far as we know it was a municipal tenant.

Mr. Stephen: Will the Lord Advocate answer a question I put to the Secretary of State?

The Lord Advocate: To be quite honest, I did not quite follow what it was, but I think it was a question of sub-lets, and that the hon. Member was doubting how far sub-lets, unfurnished, were covered by the Rent Restrictions Acts. They are covered by the Rent Restrictions Acts, broadly speaking, unless they are sub-lets of corporation property, which are not covered at all, or are illegal sub-lets. Sublets, under our law, are perfectly legal unless they are prohibited by the lease and accordingly the number of sub-lets not protected by the Rent Restrictions Acts ought to be of comparatively small proportions.

Mr. Stephen: If nothing definite is mentioned in the lease, then they are protected?

The Lord Advocate: Subject to somewhat obscure provisions in the Rent Restrictions Acts about statutory tenants. The last thing I would like to do at this Box is to give an authoritative interpretation of the Rent Restrictions Acts.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day.—[Mr. Drewe.]

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (INTERIM DEVELOPMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. CHARLES W/LL/ANIS in the Chair]

Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 2.—(Refusal and postponement of interim development applications.)

Major Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, to leave out "sheriff," and to insert "Secretary of State."
The object of this Amendment will be very clear to members of the Committee. It is to make an appeal under this Clause to the Secretary of State rather than to the sheriff. Under Clause 2, as I understand it, if anyone wants to develop any portion of land which a local authority is planning in the ordinary way under an interim development scheme the local authority has power under the by-laws to postpone consideration of the application until such time as it has completed its interim plan. Otherwise, the application might butt in very badly indeed into the whole interim scheme. So the Clause gives power to the local authority to postpone consideration of an application. The applicant, who might feel aggrieved by this postponement, appeals, under the Clause, to the sheriff against the delay and inconvenience which he might claim has been caused to him thereby. My hon. Friends and I suggest that the appeal would be far better addressed to the Secretary of State. When all is said and done, the Secretary of State exercises a kind of fraternal authority and influence over the whole of our Scottish planning. An appeal must inevitably have some reference to planning and the policy of planning, and the sheriff might not necessarily have any qualifications with regard to that. The appeal and decision must be to a very large extent of an administrative nature, and, therefore, it is more suitable for presentation to the Secretary of State. It is also the appeal of an individual against, perhaps, the communal interest, and the communal interest is better in the hands of the Secretary of State and is better safeguarded by him.
There is another important point, namely, the question of uniformity. Decisions may vary considerably in one sheriffdom, if that is the correct term, than


in another, and we want uniformity in such decisions, in accordance with concerted planning. The reason the appeal should be to the Secretary of State is in order to get greater uniformity of decision. For instance, suppose a builder wants to build a house on vacant ground within the area of a planning scheme which happens to be in the interim development stage. The local authority says, "I am sorry, but we have not got so far as to be able to make a final decision on this yet. We must ask permission to postpone giving you a final answer because this provision does not dovetail into our scheme." The builder says, "I really cannot wait," and he appeals to the sheriff. It seems that the difficulty is this: The interim development authority explain to the sheriff that they are not yet in a position to make a decision as to the use to which the ground in dispute must be put and plead that giving permission to the builder to go ahead would prejudice their whole scheme. The appellant says, "I am ready to begin; I am not satisfied with your reason." All sorts of matters other than matters of law come into the question. Therefore my hon. Friends and I feel strongly that the appeal should be made to the Secretary of State rather than direct to the sheriff.

Mr. Neil Maclean: We are practically agreed on this, and, if it were accepted, it would mean the disposal of most of the amendments on the Paper, because they are merely supplementary. Considering that any appeal to the sheriff would entail considerable expenditure in all probability by any aggrieved individual, while in the case of an appeal to the Secretary of State there would be practically no court fees, and considering that all the proposals for the planning of the areas must be before the Secretary of State's Department, I think the matter would be expedited and decisions arrived at with less expenditure involved to the parties.

The Secretary of State of Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I have had an opportunity of discussing this matter with hon. Members and also with representatives of local authorities' associations, and they are unanimous in asking us to accept the Secretary of State in preference to the sheriff. The point referred to in the Schedule is a question of legality, and we

have another attitude to take up there, but this deals with a question of policy, and, in view of the unanimous view of the local authorities and what I take to be the unanimous wishes of the Committee, we accept the Amendment.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I had not expected that the right hon. Gentleman would so readily have accepted the Amendment. I should have thought there was so much in the proposed change that he might at least have given us reasons, apart from the fact that some people agree with him, before making this substantial change. I should have thought that the fact of our always having in the past brought in the sheriff, for very good reasons, was a good reason for at any rate hesitating now. The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that this was a question for the community and that the community's interest would best be represented by my right hon. Friend. I should have thought, however, that that was a reason why an outside person should be brought in, such as the sheriff, because in fact the local authority will be speaking for my right hon. Friend, and, therefore, if the Amendment is carried, you are appealing to the very person who is, as it were, imposing his will on the appellant. It is a third view that we want to get. I am certain that -Oat is the traditional policy of the country, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain in detail why he accepts the Amendment.

Mr. Johnston: The question raised in Clause 2 (2, a) is whether the sheriff has to be satisfied that the development would be carried out immediately if the application were granted. The local authority's contention is that the sheriff is not in a position to know whether it could be carried out immediately and that the Secretary of State, who has Departmental advisers, is in a better position to know, and therefore in a better position than the sheriff to decide the issue. It is purely this narrow point that is under discussion.

Mr. Stewart: How would the appellant make his appeal to the Secretary of State? What is the machinery suggested?

Mr. Johnston: The Clause says that he may appeal against any such notice by giving notice of appeal within 28 days.

Mr. Stewart: We are thinking in terms of people who have certain plans to put


forward. The owners of property in my constituency are not wealthy people but often poor widows. It is that kind of person for whom I am speaking, and they want to know precisely what is the method of making an appeal. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has really considered that. There will have to be some other kind of machinery. What is it?

Mr. Johnston: For the life of me I cannot see the point. If a man may appeal to the Secretary of State instead of to the sheriff, it seems to me a very simple matter. He has simply to send a letter.

Mr. Stewart: Then what happens?

Mr. Johnston: The Secretary of State has to decide whether he is satisfied that the development will be carried out immediately if the application is granted. He is in a better position to know than the sheriff, and that is the contention of all the local authorities.

Mr. Stewart: I am pressing this because of the ejaculations on the other side. Hon. Members say, "Wait and see." I am not satisfied to wait and see what the Secretary of State or any other official may do. I want to know precisely what is to happen if a poor widow in my part of the world makes an appeal. Is she to be heard? May she take a solicitor with her? What sort of examination is to follow?' These are important matters, which ought to be explained before we accept the Amendment. I press the right hon. Gentleman to tell us, if not now, at least at some other time, in some detail precisely how that person's appeal is to be treated.

Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Member will read paragraphs (a) and (b) he will see the method of appeal to be followed if it is to the sheriff. In view of the acceptance of the Amendment, he need only substitute the Secretary of State for Scotland for the sheriff, and the procedure is exactly the same.

Mr. McKinlay: It is obvious that the hon. Member opposite has very little experience in trying to prevent an individual not only preventing a development but cutting into the middle of it. The local authorities regard an appeal to the sheriff as delaying action, and in some cases it has involved the local authorities in paying compensation which would not otherwise be paid. It is because

of their experience that, without prompting from Members of Parliament, they make this request. If the Secretary of State were the final arbiter in any planning scheme, the sheriff would not be able to cut across the desires and wishes of the Executive for the planning of the whole of Scotland. The thing is too absurd for words. Anyone dealing with property would surely consult his solicitor. There are any number of solicitors, even in East Fife, who could convey to the Secretary of State the terms of an appeal under this Clause just as easily as they could lodge it in the sheriff's court.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 23, leave out "sheriff," and insert "Secretary of State"—[Major Lloyd.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am not satisfied with the reply the right hon. Gentleman has so far given me, and I propose to put down a Question at an early date so that he can give me a considered reply.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 7.—(Compensation for abortive expenditure'in certain cases.)

Mr. McKinlay: I beg to move in page 8, line 38, to leave out "reasonably," and to insert "necessarily."
This Clause deals with payment of compensation by an interim development authority for any expenditure incurred or any sums reasonably paid in discharge of any liability. That word "reasonably" to our way of thinking is very dangerous. No two persons will be agreed on what "reasonably" means. We would much rather see the word "necessarily" inserted, because in our view it is much easier to determine what is necessary than what is reasonable.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): I think we are all trying to reach the same result, but I am afraid the substitution of "necessarily" for "reasonably"
might have awkward consequences. Look at the picture of what is to happen. Someone has made a contract with a contractor which has been rendered abortive by reason of the change in plans, and the


compensation that we are here dealing with is the sum which the person has had to pay to the contractor to get out of his bargain. If we say "the sum which a person has reasonably paid to the contractor," he may compromise with the contractor and not go to law about it. If, however, he is given only a sum which it was necessary for him to pay to the contractor, I am afraid he will have to litigate about it, because it is never necessary for you to pay anything to your contractor until, there is a decree out against you. I am therefore afraid that, much though I sympathise with the purpose of my hon. Friend, the substitution of the word "necessarily" for "reasonably" would do more harm than good.

Mr. McKinlay: It is because I think the arrangement would be the other way round and that there would be collusion between the person claiming compensation and the contractor to inflate the amount of the expenditure with a view to compensating both, that I moved the Amendment I am satisfied from my own experience of works which have been cancelled and in dealing with the question of compensation that if the word "reasonably" is left there will be collusion on a large scale.

The Lord Advocate: I do not think there is much difference in the opportunity for collusion. If people want to be dishonest and lay their heads together they can defeat the word "necessarily" as easily as they can the word "reasonably" by putting up a collusive bargain which the local authority do not see through. The local authority can as easily say that a bargain is unreasonable as that it is unnecessary.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 9—(Provision as to joint committees).

Mr. McKinlay: I beg to move, in page, line 19, to leave out Sub-section (3).
I do not want to press the Amendment, but I want an assurance from the Secretary of State that reasonable care will be taken in using the power given in this Sub-section. Let me give an illustration.
The Clyde Valley has a regional planning authority set up voluntarily and in good faith. What is troubling the larger authorities is that the Secretary of State may take out of their hands any jurisdiction of planning in their areas. What disturbs the minds of the people in Glasgow is that there is nothing in the Clause to prevent the Secretary of State handing the power to the regional committee for planning the whole of the Glasgow area without regard to what the claims of the city may be. If an assurance is forthcoming we do not propose to press the Amendment.

Mr. Johnston: As my hon. Friend knows, this is a subject on which there is some difference of opinion among local authorities. I have in vain sought to get them to agree. I have had joint meetings with the county councils and the cities. The counties on the one hand want the Bill as it stands, and the cities on the other hand would prefer that these powers should not be explicitly stated or at least should not be given the opportunity of being arbitrarily used. At the, last meeting I had with these joint bodies, I gave them the most explicit assurance, which I now repeat, that in no circumstances will these powers ever be used unless it is with the concurrence of a majority of the local authorities concerned.

Mr. McKinlay: I am afraid that for the purpose of constituting a majority Edinburgh would be one authority, and the contiguous authorities, possible responsible for a rateable value of one-tenth, would form other authorities. In the case of Glasgow that city would be regarded as one unit for constituting the minority, and the contiguous local authorities would be able to determine what the planning of Glasgow was to be. The right hon. Gentleman's assurance is somewhat illusive and unless we can get words inserted on the next stage, I am afraid we shall have to divide on it.

Mr. Johnston: I shall be delighted if my hon. Friend can assist me or the local authorities with words which would get over the bone of contention. The law as it now stands in the Act of 1932 gives power to the Secretary of State, as it does in the English Act, upon the application of one local authority to set up a joint committee. I am going beyond that and saying that in no circumstances will the power ever be used to set up a joint


committee on the application of one authority but that it will require more than one authority. Indeed, I would ask for a majority of the local authorities concerned. I will be happy to consult with my hon. Friend between now and the next stage of the Measure to see whether there can be any form of words more satisfactory to all parties concerned.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: My people in Edinburgh would prefer the deletion of this Sub-section, although they do not ask me to carry it to a,Division against the Government unless there is widespread support on all sides for the Amendment.

Mr. Maclean: The Secretary of State has referred to the possibility of an Amendment on the next stage. Is he not taking the Report stage to-day?

Mr. Johnston: I should have said that we would insert any agreed Amendment in another place.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I welcome what the Secretary of State has said. The Edinburgh Corporation do not like the Clause as it stands, because they feel it undesirable in principle that the Secretary of State should of his own initiative take away the planning powers of a responsible local authority. I would urge that if possible some agreement be come to, although I recognise that the cities are out of step with the county councils in this matter.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Appeals from decision to exercise power to enforce interim development control.)

Major Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 15, line 15, to leave out "sheriff," and to insert "Secretary of State."
At first sight it might appear that the arguments which I tried to use on Clause 2 are identical with those I might use in connection with this and other Amendments on the same lines to the Schedule. This situation, however, is a little different from that in Clause 2, and my hon. Friends and I realise that my right hen. Friend might well be in a greater difficulty in accepting the Amendments to the Schedule than he was on Clause 2.
Clause 2 referred only to an interim development proposal which had not been implemented. The Schedule refers to an appeal to the sheriff against a decision of the local authority telling the aggrieved party to remove a house or something which was standing in the way of the local authority's plan. That of course is a bigger thing and hits a party harder than merely being held up by an interim development decision. At the same time the arguments that were used by me on Clause 2 really apply to this case, because I still contend that the Secretary of State is the better arbitrator on this issue. The sheriff is bound to give his ruling to some extent in accordance with the merits of the policy of the plan or the wisdom or otherwise of the local authority's ideas. What has the sheriff got to do with them? If it were purely a matter of fact, let the sheriff make the decision, but it cannot, except in exceptional circumstances, be a matter of fact or of law or of interpretation of law. It must in almost every instance be a matter closely associated with the merits or the wisdom of the policy of the planning authority. For that reason, if for no other, I suggest that the Secretary of State is the best arbitrator because the whole question of the merit of the planning scheme are inevitably involved in the decision.

The Lord Advocate: There is some misapprehension in the minds of my hon. Friend and those who support the Amendment because the scope of the appeal to the sheriff is not nearly so extensive as his remarks appear to indicate. May I say a word about a preliminary difficulty in the way of accepting the Amendment? Under the existing code a very similar question—it may be precisely the same question—can be a question of appeal once the scheme has become operative and then it goes to the sheriff. It would be odd to have an appeal to the Secretary of State the day before a scheme became operative but an appeal to the sheriff on practically the same question the day after. Unless there are strong reasons for the contray the appeals should go 'to the same tribunal. The misapprehension arises from not looking sufficiently narrowly at the words in the first two lines of paragraph 3 of the Schedule. What the sheriff is entitled to do is to satisfy himself that the authorities are entitled to take the proposed action, that


is, to remove the offending building. He has emphatically not got to satisfy himself or inquire into whether the local authorities were well advised in taking the action. In every case you have two stages: First, you must be sure that all the conditions are satisfied which entitle a body to take action. Having reached that stage, it then becomes a question of the merits—we are entitled to do it, but shall we do it? It is the first stage and not the second stage which goes to the sheriff. I hope that will make it clear that the sheriff is not in the least entitled to embark upon the merits of the proposal. What he is bound to do is to make sure that there are plans in contemplation which would warrant an Order being made and that the building which is alleged to offend does in fact offend against the proposed plan. These are proper questions of interpretation which ought to go to the sheriff. I quite agree that if there were any question of the merits, that would be wrong, but in fact they do not go there.

Major Lloyd: I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied with the reply, but as it is only an interim reply on an interim Bill, I should certainly not be prepared to press my Amendment, but I feel convinced that when the Town and Country Planning Bill for Scotland comes to be framed my point will have to be considered and met. We could not have such a proposal in a permanent Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE. (Repeals Of 22 and 23 Geo. 5. C. 49.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. McKinlay: "In page Is, leave out lines 37 and 38."

The Deputy-Chairman: Does the hon. Member propose to move his Amendment?

Mr. McKinlay: It seems too futile to move it after what has gone before. It may be that I shall have another opportunity of discussing it, but I certainly am not moving anything with regard to expenses. Every labourer is worthy of his hire, and if a matter goes to the sheriff, those who take part in the proceedings are entitled to be paid.

The Deputy-Chairman: I gather that the hon. Member does not move.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS

Ordered,
That Sir Stanley Reed be added to the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports." — [Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE (FIRE GUARD) REGULATIONS, 1943

Sir Herbert Williams: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty praying that the Defence (Fire Guard) Regulations, 1943, presented to this House on 30th June, 1943, be annulled.
As the Home Secretary knows, this is not a hostile Motion. Its purpose is to obtain a discussion on this Defence Regulation and, still more, on the subsidiary Orders made under it which have, naturally, aroused great interest. Apart from the Defence Regulation there have been consequential Orders, which are numbered 1043, 1044 and 1048. There are two matters to which I want to refer before I get down to the subject-matter. It was my privilege as Chairman of the Special Inquiries Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, to carry out an inquiry into the National Fire Service and in our report which was presented to Parliament on 23rd July, 1942, our last recommendation was that the possibility of bringing fire guards under the operational control of the National Fire Service should be carefully studied. Our recommendation was not too precise because we realised that, to a substantial extent, the fire guard administration organisation had to be a local authority function, but I would be grateful if the Home Secretary would tell us to what extent he feels there is a proper operational link between the National Fire Service and the fire-guard organisation. We realise that they cannot be the same organisation, because there has to be a local authority organisation in connection with the domestic premises and the busi-


ness premises Orders and it would overload the National Fire Service to ask them to perform that function.
Later, the same Sub-Committee looked into the problem of the payment of fire guards and a report was presented to Parliament on 15th April, 1943. It was referred to in the Debate on Civil Defence some time ago but I will briefly state the facts. No one knows the figure with complete accuracy, but there are about 5,000,000 people undertaking fire-guard duties and every night one-seventh of them, 750,000, are on duty. Of that 3,000,000 about 100,000 are under special arrangements. The ordinary person gets nothing. That is true of a good many of the domestic fire guards. A certain number get a subsistence allowance, generally 3s. a night, or a little more during the long winter nights. Another lot are paid wages for fire-guard duties. I am no.1, talking about full-time fire guards to whom it is a sole occupation and who do it every night but the man and woman who does 48 hours a month and is paid wages for it. Some of these people are paid up to 2s. an hour--that was the maximum.
In our Report we made a slight slip because we said that difficulties which had arisen were purely local and concerned only individual firms and that was not quite true. There are national arrangements certainly in the milling industry and I think in the printing industry and another which I forget, and the milling industry has drawn attention to the fact that the statement to which I refer did not quite represent the facts. These arrangements were made at a time when an obligation was imposed on the occupiers of premises to have fire guard arrangements and when there was no corresponding obligation on citizens to undertake fire-guard duties. In the result, we have 4,900,000 persons doing a civic duty, and about 100,000 being paid, in many cases at handsome rates. This is a cause of great discontent among those who do the work voluntarily. Neither the trade unions nor the employers want to stop it. The trade unions negotiated the terms in many cases and their members would be discontented, and the employers do not want any trouble and do not worry, because in nearly every case they are the recipients of handsome profits which would be paid over to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and this comes out of E.P.T. But it is important to note that

the State is being exploited to the tune, as far as I can guess, of £4,000,000 a year paid to a narrow aristocracy of 100,000 fire guards. What the rest are doing is a civic duty and the sub-committee were unanimous—and not only the sub-committee but the Select Committee—that this state of affairs should be brought to an end. I hope the Home Secretary will be able to tell us what is happening.
Since I put down this Motion I have had a mass of correspondence. Some of it I did not agree with at all. Some people thought compulsory fire watching was wrong but I think we cannot help having a compulsory Order. I think that is inevitable for a great task requiring 5,000,000 people. In its scope, it is almost bigger than National Service, because I very much doubt whether 5,000,000 people have been called up to the Armed Forces in addition to those who joined voluntarily. This matter affects potentially the general mass of people in this country who are not in the Forces, and there is a great deal of anxiety as to whether tribunals will take into account and give adequate consideration to the personal difficulties which arise in many cases. There is considerable nervousness about the attitude of the hardship tribunals largely because, judging by the letters I received, some of these tribunals are not as sympathetic as they might be and sometimes not so courteous to the people who appear before them. The main body of criticism I have received does not concern the Defence Regulation but the three documents to which I have referred. They are lengthy documents and because people did not understand them—or because somebody did not understand them—an Explanatory Memorandum of 71 pages was issued by the Home Secretary. This is all the more irritating because paper is short, ink is scarce and the type is so abominably small that it is a weariness of the flesh to read it. I think a good deal of the criticism was directed primarily not to the Order itself but to the explanation of the Order.
I shall be brief because we have started the Debate much later than was expected and I want the Home Secretary to have as much time as possible to explain his Explanatory Memorandum. An hon. Member here has handed me a letter which he received from the proprietors of a well-known paper, the "Dundee Courier." It says:


Enclosed is copy of one of new fire-guard forms.
Dundee has been very cross about this, and I think the Home Secretary may have heard a mouthful when he was there recently.
Our firm will have zoo and more to fill up with detail particulars we have to hunt, while formerly four forms, easily filled up, covered the job. It is bureaucracy at its worst, for behind it all are threats and bullying.
I do not know whether that is true or not, but this letter is written by a Mr. D. C. Thomson. It is rather a lot of stuff to fill up. I registered for fire watching in Westminster and I did not fill up anything like so much, and there is a danger that we may have too much paper used.
There is a constitutional issue that I want to raise. When the new Orders were published there appeared in the Press a statement that Members of Parliament who thought they would not be able to perform their duties if required for fire watching, could apply to the Home Secretary and he would grant them a certificate of exemption. I was rather worried about that, because the privileges of Members of Parliament are not personal to a Member. Our privileges are intended to enable us to perform our duties to our constituents and so are privileges given to the constituents. I believe that, constitutionally, no officer of His Majesty can direct a Member of Parliament to do something which interferes with his duties here. I believe that,
constitutionally, every Member of Parliament is exempt from the National Service Act, whether the Home Secretary issues a certificate or not. I do not believe the Home Secretary has a right, constitutionally, to issue those certificates, because presumably he has not the power to order a Member of Parliament to fire watch in circumstances which may prevent his attendance here. I would advise hon. Members to get from the Library the Report of the Select Committee on the Secret Service Act which was presented in 1939. It is the latest statement on what are the privileges of Members of
Parliament. I believe that if the Home Secretary or the Minister of Labour were to issue a direction to a Member of Parliament which in any way interfered with his attendance here, that Minister would be guilty of contempt of Parliament. I just

want to put that on record. I am not blaming the Home Secretary. I know that he had the best legal advice, namely that of the Attorney-General, but I believe that the Attorney-General was wrong in his constitutional view. I believe that it is of the utmost importance that we should make it clear that no Minister is entitled to stop a Member of Parliament from doing his duty.
There is a good deal of day-time fire-watching. I regard it as a complete waste of time. There may be odd places where it is worth while, but I know that in the office buildings where I have an office—Abbey House, at the bottom of Victoria Street—a number of clerks have to attend all Saturday afternoon, for what purpose I do not know. People are passing thought the street and plenty of the population are about, and if an incendiary fell on a building it would be seen quickly and notice could be given to the fire brigade. It is a waste of time. People are continually being irritated and burdened unnecessarily. I cannot see the Germans risking large raids on this country in day-time. I should be very reluctant if I were a German pilot to come over this country in day-time—although they did wake me up at 8 o'clock in the morning recently, but that was on a Sunday, which perhaps explains it.
We must not over-insure. The whole art of strategy is to balance your risk. The man-power employed on fire-watching is equal to the whole of the man-power in the coal mining industry; 750,000 people are engaged every night in fire-watching and they are getting bored. They are doing nothing, but just hanging about. We are boring, irritating and burdening people at a time when they have plenty of other burdens, and I hope that day-time fire-watching will be restricted as far as possible. If we can only develop aeroplanes enough, there will be nobody left to fight in the armies. That is a very important consideration. I see that Air Marshal Peck gave an estimate that there were 1,000,000 people in Germany in antiaircraft and fighter squadrons, engaged in the defence of Germany against our attacks. If you add to that the whole-time A.R.P. organisation and the balloon barrage in Germany, the total number of people immobilised in Germany and the satellite countries is in the neighbourhood of 2,000,00o. The number of Germans


fighting on the Russian Front is 2,500,000, but the mere possibility and the fact of air raids can immobilise a force equivalent to the whole army fighting on that front. That is one of the most extraordinary things in the world.
I have made a calculation, but I will not indulge in it now. I have tried it on one or two people and they did not disagree with me. The Germans have a larger area to defend than we have, and that is the most gigantic second front that we have ever thought of—large numbers of people compelled to do nothing. It is one of the strangest things that the war has brought about. How far are we to insure? We may insure ourselves so much that we destroy our productive capacity in other directions and lose more than we gain. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to make some comment on that point, although to some extent it is outside his Departmental purview—although it is within his purview as a member of the War Cabinet. How much of this can we have? I hope we can get the explanations for which so many people are looking. I have not sought to be critical but just to draw attention to one or two points which I thought were of sufficient importance to be raised in Debate.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I thought it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to speak now, not with the slightest view of closing the Debate. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is here. She is very expert on this matter, perhaps more expert than I am, and she will be very willing and perfectly competent to reply to any further observations that may be made in the course of the Debate. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has been very reasonable in what he has said and exceedingly brief, and I am grateful to him for the care he has taken to leave me as much time as I thought appropriate to reply to his observations. Certainly I have not the slightest complaint either of the contents or the tone of what my hon. Friend said about these Orders.
In this matter we are dealing with the leisure time of millions of our fellow citizens. Therefore the task is bound to be a very big one, a little explosive, liable to get one into trouble and to cause a certain amount of friction. The task whichis involved in this organisation is enormous; it is nothing less than the protection against fire bombs and up to a point the extinction of fires that have begun, in the great bulk of, nearly all, the buildings of the country over vast areas. As a consequence, the amount of detailed organisation which is involved is very great, If I may take a political analogy which hon. Members will understand, I would ask them to call to mind the enormous amount of work involved in the canvassing of the electorate for a General Election, the distribution of literature and the chasing of voters to come to the poll. I will not say that this is as bad as that, because it is not quite so scientific and not so detailed, but they are in the same category. This is one of the pieces of administration and organisation in connection with the war in which there is an extraordinary amount of detail. Every square yard of by far the greater part of our built-up areas has to be covered. At the same time we are dealing with the liberties and to some extent with the comfort of millions of free British citizens. Clearly it is a task of the greatest magnitude and of considerable difficulty.
is involved in this organisation is enormous; it is nothing less than the protection against fire bombs and up to a point the extinction of fires that have begun, in the great bulk of, nearly all, the buildings of the country over vast areas. As a consequence, the amount of detailed organisation which is involved is very great, If I may take a political analogy which hon. Members will understand, I would ask them to call to mind the enormous amount of work involved in the canvassing of the electorate for a General Election, the distribution of literature and the chasing of voters to come to the poll. I will not say that this is as bad as that, because it is not quite so scientific and not so detailed, but they are in the same category. This is one of the pieces of administration and organisation in connection with the war in which there is an extraordinary amount of detail. Every square yard of by far the greater part of our built-up areas has to be covered. At the same time we are dealing with the liberties and to some extent with the comfort of millions of free British citizens. Clearly it is a task of the greatest magnitude and of considerable difficulty.
Consequently, if it be the case that, in the course of the administration of fire prevention, there have been a fair number of changes and some evolution in the Orders, even changes of mind on the part of the Minister and the Department, it is not surprising. To a considerable extent we have had to learn as we go. I am rather proud of the fact that we were willing and anxious to learn as we went. Consequently there had to be ohanges. I believe, and the Parliamentary Secretary thinks too, that we have now reached substantial finality on the essential organisation of the fire guard, but we may be wrong. In the course of the administration of the present Orders we may find imperfections, and it would be foolish and obstinate on our part if we did not contemplate amending them. I can only say that we have done our best in the spirit of two things. One is that the country must not burn. If it did, that would be a grave injury to the war effort. Everybody accepts the doctrine that the country must not bum down; even the people who have objected really agree that the job has to be done. The second thing is, to be as considerate, sensible and reasonable as possible in dealing with these millions of our fellow


citizens, realising that they have had a fair amount of strain and that the longer the war goes on the more that strain must be taken into account. It is in that spirit of great determination to get the job done, combined, I hope, with such a degree of sweet reasonableness as we can muster in administering it, that we have sought to administer this vast piece of organisation.
My hon. Friend asked whether I thought we had now got a proper operational link between the fire guard and the National Fire Service. In a useful survey which the Select Committee on National Expenditure published, coming from a Sub-Committee presided over by my hon. Friend, there was an exceedingly valuable report in connection with the fire service. One of the proposals they made was that there should be a greater operational tie-up between the National Fire Service and the fire guard. There were some critics who said indeed that the whole fire guard administration from top to bottom should be taken over by the National Fire Ser-
vice. I think that was going too far. The National Fire Service is one of which I am very proud. I do not say that it is perfect. I think it is a pretty good show, but to land all the vast detail of fire guard organisation on to the National Fire Service, some of whose officers, quite frankly, are rather better at fighting fires than they are at detailed organisation—although some of them are very good at detailed organisation as well as at fighting fires—would have broken it down. They could not have done it. We preferred to do it in other ways.
We did accept the doctrine that there should be an operational tie-up between the National Fire Service and the fire guard. That is the reason for what is known as the fire guard plan, in which there is provided the most close cooperation between the two services. That is one of the reasons for the fire guard Orders being published at a later period than would otherwise have been the case. I think I can say that my answer to my hon. Friend's question is that there is now a proper, reasonable and adequate operational association between the National Fire Service and the fire guard; but we will watch it as it goes, and if we

should find tat further adjustment or further integration is necessary and appropriate, we shall not hesitate to learn and to make such adjustments as may be needed.
My hon. Friend referred also to the vexed and difficult question of what he called the wages paid to the fire guards, but what I would call allowances. They are not wages under my doctrine. So far as I am concerned, they may be regarded as subsistence allowances but not wages. To that matter we have given a great deal of the most careful attention. Fire guarding has a long and tortuous history. It began under the doctrine, I think at the beginning of the war, or perhaps before the war started—I was not there, anyhow —that there was an obligation on an occupier to see that his premises were guarded against enemy attack by incendiary bombs. It stopped there. Consequently many occupiers proceeded to employ people on something like a full-time basis for wages. The wages varied in the extreme, and I must say, if rumours and stories were true, that some of the time rates plus piece rates were on an extraordinarily high level. That was the beginning. Then it became clear that that was not enough. All the occupiers could not find people for these jobs as the labour shortage developed. Then they proceeded to enter into agreements with the trade unions for the payment of a sum per night or per stretch or per hour, which in some cases came to full wages per hour, or estimated wages on piece rates, plus overtime rates—in an extreme minority of cases; I do not want to put it higher than it is—varying down to sums which nevertheless were higher than the allowances which the Government subsequently recognised.
All this was done with the best will in the world. People had to make their fire-guard arrangements as best they could before the issue of compulsion was raised and dealt with. Consequently, by the time I came to face the fire blitz of the winter of 1940–41—which did not start in full blast straight away; it was rather a matter of high explosives at first—I could see, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary could see, that if we did not bustle about we might be gravely injured in the war by valuable establishments being burned down. Therefore we said we had got to transform this system


of professional employment of restricted numbers of workpeople engaged under particular agreements between employers and workpeople into a mass affair. That is to say, fire-guard work had got to become mass service instead of selective work. So 1 broadcast, and the result was very encouraging. Vast numbers of people responded. They were particularly willing to do duty in residential areas, but they were a bit more sticky about duty in the places where they worked. Their response was very fine, and I shall never cease to be grateful to the British people for the kindness and consideration they have extended to me. Despite all the bricks I have had thrown at me, I think that on the whole I was treated pretty well in regard to this voluntary effort. Not only did I get a substantial response, but the number of volunteers rose to enormous figures.
Inevitably, however, it was not long before the volunteers looked down the street in which they lived and over the factory where they worked, and they saw a proportion of people not doing the job at all. Very quickly they brought pressure to bear upon the Government, and the Press did the same. They said, "Don't fool about with this job. It has got to be done. If you have got to get us to do it, then let us have all-round compulsion in the fire-guard service." And they were right. I saw that the Government had to come to a quick decision, and in consultation with my colleagues I got authority to go ahead with compulsion.
It was done pretty rapidly, but, believe me, the Government have got to do things pretty rapidly in critical circumstances of that kind. That is the story. Subsequently, we had to determine what was to be the standard rate of allowance, and broadly the standard rate of allowance was 3s. per night, with 4s. 6d. for a somewhat longer period and 6s. for a still longer period. It varied in accordance with the length of duty and was laid down in the fire-guard Orders. The Government saw at that time that there might be trouble about these special payments—I had got plenty of trouble of my own just then—and one grievance was that there had not been longish consultation either with employers or with trade unions. That was true. We arranged what consultations we could, but we were in a hurry and the war was in a hurry, and rightly or

wrongly, the Government took the view that we had better leave things as they were; that existing arrangements, or, as I believe they are called in other circles, existing contracts, had better be left where they were, and that for the rest the people would have to be compelled to do the job on standard allowances. It was very understandable, exceedingly British, but, I admit, all very illogical.
The Select Committee has examined this matter, and my hon. Friend as Chairman of a Sub-committee has presented a Report. The first Report is a very nice one and a very useful one. The second Report was very nice, and I am not going to say that it was not a useful one, but it presented me with a bit of a headache when I got it. I said to myself, "Now you are up against it." The Committee presented its Report on the basis that if the Government laid fire guard service down as one of the duties and obligations of a citizen, if they laid it down as a duty of civic service and not to be done as employment for wages or for any personal advantage, they should make a sort of subsistence or out-of-pocket allowance, not by way of remuneration, but in order to see broadly that people were not out of pocket by doing this duty. The Committee said it was wrong that some citizens should only get 3s. subsistence allowance while others got varying, higher rates of remuneration amounting in a minority of cases to full wages and even overtime rates. In short, the hon. and Conservative Member for South Croydon presented me with the Socialist argument of social service.
I will be perfectly frank. I cannot answer the Socialist sentiments of the hon. Member for South Croydon. They are unanswerable arguments. Once this job is put on the basis of compulsory civic service, it is wrong that some should get subsistence rates and others should get remuneration for what they do. I can only defend it on grounds of expediency. If it is put on the basis of equalitarian Socialist justice, I think he is right, and I do not dispute it. I only say that on the ground of expediency this was the best we could do in the circumstances. We have been in consultation with a body which we set up after the disturbance in connection with the fairly quick imposition of compulsion, namely, the National Advisory Council for Fire Prevention, which has been a most useful body to me


in the administration of the Orders and the shaping of the organisation. The employers' bodies are on it, the Trade Union Congress is on it, local authorities are represented, the Co-operative movement is represented, the Regional Commissioners are represented, and there are some others on the body as well. It is the case that at the time or round about the time compulsion was introduced we, the Government, the employers and the unions, issued a joint declaration agreeing that the existing contracts should continue, that these special payments should continue to be made.
Therefore it was right when we came to consider the Select Committee's Report that I should go to the Advisory Council and ask them what their views were and give them an indication of mine. It is fair, I think, to the employers and the trade unions that I should tell the House that the view that was expressed, not only by the Trades Union Congress, not only by the employers but by both employers and the Trades Union Congress, was that this honourable undertaking having been entered into by the Government, the employers and the Trades Union Congress at the beginning of compulsion, the old existing agreements between employers and employed should continue, that it would not be right or proper for the Government now to bring them to an end, that it would cause a good deal of friction in industry, and that at the end we should lose more than we gained over the standardisation which we had under consideration. Therefore the employers have not pressed me to cut these payments. I agree with the hon. Member that it is not irrelevant that E.P.T. in many cases creates a situation in which the employer in fact is paying them out of the Treasury indirectly. However, I do not suggest that they would be influenced by that consideration, but it is the case that the employers had not pressed us to make any downward change in this matter. Indeed the Trades Union Congress and the employers were both agreed that it would be a pity for the Government to interfere and that we had better leave it alone. It is only fair that that should be stated. Indeed, the employers in particular wanted me to make it clear that they were not pressing the Government to do this as a result of any attitude of

meanness towards the wage rates of labour.
As we went along with the fire guard organisation we were faced with the difficulty that we had to make use of manpower as a whole and do so as equitably as we could. It was the case that certain people were evading duty by living in a non-prescribed area and working in a prescribed one. That is another matter, but there was another difficulty which was not evasion, where in a big factory the number of workpeople employed were many more than the number needed at 48 hours per month to produce the necessary degree of fire guarding. As it was distributed over all of them, it might be that they would do not 48 hours but 30, 24, or 12, even less in some extreme cases, as my hon. Friend will agree. At the same time there developed a shortage among the local authorities who had to take over the responsibility for the pooled smaller business premises and they were pressed for man-power. Consequently it was essential to decide, and it was to the credit of the Advisory Council that they with their eyes open agreed to it, that if in a big factory you take such men as are needed for 48 hours a month to fire guard it the surplus you have should go to the local authority to go into the pool or be otherwise used. When you do that it creates a new situation. You take a man out of the job where the trade union agreement for a higher rate of payment may exist, and in many cases you forcibly transfer such a man to the local authority pool where he gets the standard rate. Such a man is going to feel sore not only at having to do more hours but at getting less remuneration. That was a consideration.
The next consideration was that we were concerned with what we call block schemes. In places where there was a miscellaneous group of medium-sized factories, for example, it was advantageous to organise them or blocks of them as a unit. Therefore, the man-power had to be mixed up, and as a consequence the 3s. a night men might be mixed with others getting materially more. I saw that life was going to be increasingly difficult for someone, probably me, if men working side by side got a materially different reward or subsistence allowance. I have put this quite frankly to the Fire Advisory Council. The Government as a whole have considered it. We


have come to the conclusion in principle that these unequal rates must stop, and honestly in equity I do not see what else the Government could do. I may be criticised for this, there may be argument about it, but the more you look at it, if the system is to be elastically administered as a civic service, it becomes increasingly more indefensible that men and perhaps women fire-guarding side by side should have materially different rates and compensation for the work they are doing.
Therefore, the Government as a whole, I having consulted my colleagues, have come to the conclusion that it must terminate, but in view of the history of the matter and in view of the fresh arrangements that will have to be made, and in view of the psychology of this rather difficult business, we think that good notice should be given. One of the most material parts of the change is that employers will no longer get taxation relief for any moneys they spend over and above the stipulated rates, unless of course they are employing the persons concerned on a full-time basis; otherwise they will not get tax relief after what one may call the appointed day. As far as the Government are concerned, I take responsibility on their behalf for saying that in the judgment of His Majesty's Government all these people should be treated in the same way, and we think that the same way is to give them the standard rate of subsistence allowance which is provided for in the fire guard Orders.
As regards the date on which we think this change should be operative, we have come to the conclusion that there should be proper notice in order that it should come at a time when psychologically it will work most sweetly and happily. We have come to the conclusion that we had better start it about 1st April, which is round about the beginning of double summer-time and the beginning of the Income Tax year. It seems to me that at about the period of the beginning of double summer-time people begin to take things more happily than in the middle of winter. I hope the House will agree that it is reasonable. We hope the change will be taken with more sweetness than would be the case if we were to do it now. [Interruption.] If peace breaks out, it will solve a lot of problems, including this one. That is that. I now hope for the best. I am not sure that my

hon. Friend is right about the figures he mentions. He does not know, and I do not know, that the cost is £4,000,000—and I am not contradicting him—but it sounds to me a bit on the high side.

Sir H. Williams: We tried to find out from the Treasury how much they were sanctioning, but they had not the faintest idea.

Mr. Morrison: As regards relaxations, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is chairman of the Fire Prevention Operations Committee which has been dealing with that matter, and I will leave this question.to her expert hands. The Parliamentary Secretary has done a great job on fire prevention, and I should like to say here that I am exceedingly grateful to her for the expert and efficient way in which she has worked in this matter. I am a great admirer of the courage and the pluck with which she has stood up to a difficult, tricky and not always thankful task.
I will come absolutely clean about the Explanatory Memorandum. As regards the Orders, we have fewer now than we had before: the number is materially less. They are very nice reading, too; and we have rationalised and amalgamated some of them, so that they are better. I agree that it is not easy to defend an Explanatory Memorandum which was issued for the purpose of simplifying and which contains more words than the number of words in all the Orders which it explains—I am on a bad wicket—but I will try to defend it and make the best of a difficult case. First, we were in a hurry with all the applications, and people kept bobbing up with new ideas. The Press—bless their hearts—kept bobbing up with new suggestions. We held up the Memorandum to make some further improvements, and we added pages because we were having new suggestions dropped upon us by the Press. I am sure the Press would take responsibility jointly with me for the size of the Memorandum, although they have pulled my leg about it ever since.
Some of the Orders are entirely new. It is not essential that each person concerned with the administration of Orders should know everything about all the Orders. The local authorities want to know the local authority side: the business premises man wants to know the


business premises side, but he may not want to know the local authorities side. Nevertheless, a document was wanted in which everything was to be found. The trade union officials, the high officers of the Government Departments, the local authority and regional officials and so on, want a document in which everything is included, so that they can pick out what they want to know, and find an answer to every question. That is the basic reason for the length of the Explanatory Memorandum. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was rather criticised for something she said. She said that it was not a document for casual reading by every one of these millions of fire guards, but a document for the supervisory people who have to run this machine. That is true. We have supplemented this Memorandum by a series of leaflets of a simple and short character, which I am sure will be very helpful. We had not much time. We had to get it out. If I had had more time I would have referred it to that new and admirable institution in Government Departments, the Public Relations Department, with instructions to cut it down to half, and I have no doubt that when they had had a tussle with the Fire Prevention department, which would have taken weeks, they would have cut it down to half. I wish it were shorter; I am not proud of its length; but it is complete, and the people who have to administer it can find in it everything they want to know. The number of Orders now is three, dealing with local authority services, business and Government premises, and medical and hardship exemptions: previously there were 12. So we have made an extraordinary reduction in the number of the Regulations.
I ought to refer to one other matter to which my hon. Friend referred—that is, the position of the Member of Parliament. This is a matter on which I must walk warily, because the business of Privilege is tricky, and I cannot pretend to be unchallengeable or an expert upon it. But the position, as I understand it, is as follows. There is no express provision in these Orders exempting Members of Parliament. I think my hon. Friend would not wish there to be such a provision, because he would say that that was a presumption by one of the King's officers. Therefore, if the machinery were left to

operate on its own, Members might find themselves required by some Civil Defence controller, fire guard officer, town clerk or what not, to do fire guard duty. The Member might say, "I am not going; I plead my Parliamentary Privilege," and then there would be an interesting situation. If I tried to make him—which I say quite freely I would not—I think the remedy for him or for me would be to say, "We are in dispute; this should go to the Committee of Privileges, which alone can determine these things." I assume—although this would be a matter for the House to decide—that a Member could disregard such a requirement if, in his judgment, it would interfere with his Parliamentary duties. I do not want to see difficulties arising between Members of Parliament and the local authorities, for the sake of both Members of Parliament and the local authorities.
I thought, as a matter of common sense, that the best thing would be if I intimated to Members of Parliament that if they told me that, in their judgment, fire guard duties would interfere with their Parliamentary duties, I would make the necessary arrangements; and then everything would go smoothly. The last thing I wanted to do was to interfere with the rights and privileges of Parliament. To avoid this question arising, the Secretary of State for Scotland and I thought it right for us to ask Members whether the carrying out of these duties would interfere with their Parliamentary duties. We agreed between ourselves that we would accept the view of the individual Member of Parliament, and take the necessary steps, as provided by the Order, to see that Members were not worried by requirements which, in their view, they would be entitled to disregard. I think that, having indicated the spirit of respect, and even of humility, with which I approached this subject, and having shown that really it was a matter of studying the convenience of hon. Members, I shall be acquitted by my hon. Friend of any wish to challenge the rights and privileges of Members of the Legislature. This being on the records of the House, I hope it will be agreed that I have not done anything to challenge the privileges of Parliament.
I have spoken at rather great length, I am afraid, and I hope that the House will now excuse me. There is a meeting which I must attend and my hon. Friend the


Parliamentary Secretary, who is an authority on this subject, will be exceedingly glad to deal with any other points which Members may raise.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I rise, not to enter into the Debate or to challenge these Orders, but to put a point to the Parliamentary Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman some months ago was good enough to answer a Question which I put to him, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to enlighten me if I remind her of what the right hon. Gentleman said. Let me say first that some men and women are willing to do fire-guard duty, and really are doing it, but because they decline to register they are prosecuted. There has been a very remarkable case in Liverpool of a minister of the Unitarian church who was actually doing all that the Home Office and the local authority required of him, but because be refused to register he was prosecuted, and sent to prison. I do not think that the State gains anything by prosecuting an individual when in fact he is performing voluntarily all that is legally required of him. This is what the right hon. Gentleman replied to me:
The new Orders will provide relief to a man who though having a conscientious objection to compulsory registration is nevertheless prepared voluntarily to perform the requisite duties. I am not prepared to modify the Orders in favour of persons who refuse to undertake this duty.
I think that was a fairly generous statement on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman. All I am doing is to raise on this issue, with which I have been trying to make myself familiar, the question whether these new Orders carry out the promise the right hon. Gentleman then made on the Floor of the House of Commons. That is all I want to say, and I trust that I may get a reply on that important point.

Mr. Salt: I wish to support the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), who moved this Prayer. I think that the answer we have received from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has justified him in moving it. I cannot really say, however, that we have had much of an answer yet to the difficulties that are being found in these Orders and particularly in the explanatory notice. Like the Mover of the Prayer, I have had many letters from

people stating they cannot understand what is meant. In fact, they are more fogged by the Explanatory Memorandum than they are by the Orders. I received a letter this morning in which a gentleman said:
I have always thought I could at least unravel most of these Orders and put the man details into effect but I find that these absolutely beat me despite the object of the Explanatory Memorandum.
That has not been completely cleared up by the Home Secretary, and I hope that the hon. Lady will be able to give us a few more details, as I know she is entirety capable of doing so. I want to bring a rather more fundamental objection to the Orders themselves. It would appear that we are still considering the technique of 1940–41, and personally I think that the type of bombing we are likely to get at all will be of a different nature. I understand from the statement of the Minister that he is still considering that we shall have—if we get them at all—raids of a similar nature to those two years ago.
Personally—and I believe a great many others think the same—I think that one of these days we may get a raid comparable to those that we are giving to Germany night after night. If we consider the position of a great city having a 3o minutes' raid with tons of explosives coming down, we have to look at the way of meeting it from a different point of view from that of the stirrup pump and the fire-watcher. Possibly it is explained in the Order, but I would like to ask exactly what women who are fire-watching are to do when the actual raid takes place. When the siren has gone and immediately they get up—because most of them are expected to be either sleeping or lying down—what is their next work? Are they to go to the top of the building —and I am thinking of buildings in great towns—to watch out for incendiary bombs, or are they to go down the street to watch? If they do anything of the sort, if a bomb should come down, the probability is that they will never do anything further to try and put out bombs. In fact, they will be killed. If they are in the street, they are risking danger not only from bombs but from our own guns. What are they to do? I am sure that these women do not know what would be their next work. If we are going to have short but terrific raids, the stirrup pump will be ineffective; it is satisfactory and


useful in the suburbs, but we have to consider rather that there should be squads of highly trained men. If women are to continue fire-watching, they should go down to the shelter until the raid is over. I see that the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary looks surprised, but they would be more use coming out of the shelter when there is a slight lull than risking being killed without being able to do anything at all.
I want the Minister to consider whether he is satisfied that the fire appliances are satisfactorily dispersed. At present in large measure they are housed in the great fire stations, and one bomb might put out of action valued apparatus which would be wanted at once. That is a question that might well be considered. I should like to feel that the Minister and his very efficient staff—and I have had the pleasure of meeting his officers, and they are as fine a body as we can possibly have—have considered the new technique, and I hope that the hon. Lady will be able to give a satisfactory answer to these points.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I regret that I cannot follow the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Salt) in his line of approach on this problem, because I decline to assume either now or at any subsequent stage in this war that the Luft-waffe will be able to impose upon this country anything like the scale of air attack that the Royal Air Force and the American Air Arm are able to impose upon Germany. I would ask the House to come back to the purpose which by publicity we were told was to 'be considered. We were told in advance particularly about the Explanatory Memorandum. I listened with great care to the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), and I found that his criticisms of the Explanatory Memorandum were very mild and watery, but I must confess that I listened with far greater trepidation to the difficulties put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for his extraordinary memoranda. I hope that in what I have to say I shall not be accused of sycophancy or of bowing to the higher authority of the War Cabinet. But we are considering a system of legislation, delegated legislation, it is true, which, as we have heard, affects many millions of our people. You have a compulsory system which is designed to provide imme-

diate fire protection throughout the greater part of the country, to compel people not only to look after their own homes, which is comparatively easy, but the homes of other people. You have to compel people to look after the places where they work, which is far more difficult. They would sooner be looking after their Jhomes. Further, you have to compel them to look after places where other people work. You are, in fact, affecting 7,000,000 to 10,000,000 people in this country, their rights, liberties and leisure. You have to try and do that on a fair and equitable basis, and to erect a system of this kind must necessarily involve complicated and difficult legislation. It has taken us a little time to get it. It might have been a great advantage if we had had it a little earlier in this war, but, nevertheless, we have at last a comprehensive code.
I have read the code, and I have asked myself whether I would like to explain, first, what it meant and, secondly, how it affected and altered the existing legislation. Every lawyer in this House is familiar with what happens in legal circles or the circles of those who have to administer the law, when legislation of this comprehensive and codified kind comes into effect. The law publishers gather to themselves the best explanatory lawyers they can find and announce that, as near as may be to the time when the law comes into effect, they will publish a tome on this or that Act. They set out, Section by Section, the terms of the Act followed by explanations and cross-references stating exactly how it affects the existing legislation. That is what those who have to administer the law and the lawyer who may have to take part in a case in court look for. The publishers provide this at a price ranging from a modest 10s. to anything up to four or five guineas. I looked at the code we are now provided with and found I was assisted with an Explanatory Memorandum. Not only have I read the code, but I have read the memorandum, the first third or half of it with considerable care. I am sorry to contradict my right hon. Friend but I must say that I find it an excellent document.

Mr. H. Morrison: I did not exactly run it down.

Mr. Hughes: I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman say anything much in


praise of it. He was at pains to apologise for its length. If I have one complaint about it, it is that it might very well have been a little longer. The only complaint of substance that can be brought against it, on the basis on which explanations of Statutes and Orders have hitherto found their way to the hands of the legal profession and the administrators of the country, is that, instead of selling it for anything from 10s. to five guineas, the Government are selling it for 6d. That is the price of the Explanatory Memorandum. It is, indeed, a very excellent piece of work, upon which my right hon. Friend and his advisers are to be congratulated. In saying that, I do not mean to imply that everything contained in the code is perfect. The more one studies it the more one finds small points which could be raised in almost endless numbers.
But I merely want to raise two matters. First, I regret to see that my right hon. Friend has not, even at this stage, seen fit to apply a really comprehensive code. The block system is an excellent one. I sat upon a local authority in the early stages of the war and before it, and we advocated from the very first the institution of a block system which would incorporate everyone in the block. The block system, in terms, has been accepted but, if you study the Orders, you will find that there are authorities which can declare themselves outside the right hon. Gentleman's authority. Other Government Departments are exempt. He has no compulsory powers over any other Government Department. We have been told that the Service Departments must be exempt. Operationally, it may be, but, after all, the Service Departments have a vast range of houses and buildings and offices, largely used for what may be called purely peace-time purposes and having nothing to do with operational work at all. You can study this code and you will find that the War Office has a house with a group of clerks in it and they are outside the block. The same thing applies to all the other Government Departments. It is to be charged against the right hon. Gentleman that he has not insisted that there should be, in respect of a block, one authority and one only. That is the major criticism on the general scheme.
There is another general criticism of the set-up of this scheme and the way in which it has been prepared. It may be said again that this is a lawyer's charge, but I think it is a sound one. It is wish respect to the sanction, the enforcement of its provisions. The only enforcement provision is a back reference to Part 5 of Defence (General) Regulations, 1939. That kind of draftsmanship of applying one general enforcement blanketing over the whole provisions of this elaborate scheme, is not good enough. You will not find a decently drafted Statute or Regulation that does not apply different penalties for different offences. On the one hand, you may have a contumacious refusal to perform proper fire-guard duty, a really serious offence. On the other hand, you may have a failure on the part of a co-workman to provide certain information for which, under the Regulations, his employer is entitled to ask him as to his residence. He may have put it in wrongly. In both cases they have offended the Regulations and they come against exactly the same penal provisions.
Do not let us forget that the major part of the enforcement of these Regulations lies in the hands of lay magistrates. Does not my right hon. Friend know of the difficulties that arise from the inefficiency of lay magistrates? He has had trouble enough in recent days about lay magistrates going wrong. Many of them are apt to do so. At least they could have been provided in this code with some guidance and not left at large to the provisions of Part 5 of Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, as a complete sanction for any and every provision throughout the code. However proud the right hon. Gentleman may be—though he was not so very proud of it—but however proud his advisers or the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary may be of this edifice, which is a very well-constructed affair, I am glad to think that it is one of the things that will not give rise to any post-war problems. As soon as peace comes, however fine the edifice, it will all, I hope, fall in dust to the ground.

Mr. Ralph. Etherton: I want to deal with an aspect of this Order which I have raised with the Minister of Home Security before and which I was disappointed to notice he did not deal with in his speech. I refer to the injustice which


is imposed on certain areas by the joint schemes which are administered by the Ministry of Aircraft Production. These schemes, which operate in certain industrial areas, impose a financial burden on firms which does not apply in any other part of the Kingdom. I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary has been looking into this matter and I shall be most interested to hear with what results, because the burden which the Ministry of Aircraft Production, for the benefit of their interests, in these areas have thought fit to impose on firms is wholly unjust and quite unequal. Indeed, the matter has got to the pitch where I notice that the auditors in the letter and certificate which they attach to the accounts of a particular civil defence executive committee for the year ended 31st August, 1943, indicate that various expenses borne by occupiers ought to be paid by the Ministry of Aircraft Production. I should like to know what the Parliamentary Secretary is proposing to do to put right this inequality for which her Department is responsible, though she or her Minister has handed over primary responsibility for the operation of these joint schemes to the Ministry of Aircraft Production. It really is time that this inequality was put right.

Sir Peter Bennett: I rise only to thank and to congratulate the Minister for having tackled the question of the differential rates for fire watching, and I do so because I am afraid that if the Minister were here he might look across at me and remind me that I was one of those partly responsible for these being in operation. But I should like the House to remember that in those early days in 1940, when we were being bombed, the essential thing was to get fire watchers on to the roofs and in the streets to prevent incendiary bombs doing damage. It was my duty at that time to be responsible for a very large number of factories under the Ministry of Aircraft Production, and I had to go round and persuade people that at all costs they had to get the fire watchers at work that very night. I had to send officers all over the country, when we were arguing about conditions and rules and regulations and what they were to be paid or whether they were to be paid at all. The great thing was to save buildings being burned. I prophesied that

London would burn, and London did burn. I prophesied that Birmingham would burn and that Manchester would burn, because I knew there were hundreds and hundreds of establishments that had no fire watchers. I said to some of the firms on occasions, "They are coming tonight for all you know, and you have to get men on the roof to-night instead of thinking about organising and arranging something." Under those conditions all sorts of anomalies arose and they have gone on.
To-day conditions are quite different, and the Minister has shown great courage in tackling this problem. It will create a certain amount of discussion and irritation, no doubt, but I feel he has taken the right course in saying that he will cut it after a certain date. He has been very generous in waiting till after this winter and then saying, "After that date if you pay more than the standard rate you will have to bear the cost yourselves, and it will not be allowed for taxation purposes." It will ease the problem we are facing in the city I know, in which there is considerable irritation on the part of those who were in the block system, with one lot getting the standard rate and another lot being paid generously because the firm in the early days made this arrangement. I should like to congratulate the Minister and the hon. Lady for having taken this stand, and I feel sure that the workers will appreciate that it is the right course when they realise what has been done.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I think the House must congratulate the Home Secretary both on the way in which he has endeavoured to meet the criticisms of this Regulation and the very ingenuous and human way in which he dealt with the Explanatory Memorandum. It seems that what is really needed is a little slip to be pasted on the Memorandum, "Not for general consumption. To be taken in small doses only." I certainly think that for anyone not a lawyer who might be tempted to read the document, such advice would be a comfort, should they imagine that, by reading it, they will become masters of the whole situation.
I wondered whether I might raise two points, with which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to deal. We all realise that the problem she has had


to face is in some ways an insoluble one. You cannot get perfect justice in the very difficult conditions which have to be coped with in war-time. It has been pointed out to me how very hard it is in certain businesses where there are a large number of men that the women have no obligation to fire watch in contrast to other places where there are very few men, where women who have home ties and difficult home circumstances, have to do fire watching, while at a little distance in another firm there may be other women with no special home duties and physically capable, who have no similar obligations. I do not know whether, in any revision which is contemplated, it may be possible to reconsider that anomaly, but if so it would remove a very real sense of grievance.
The other point is the need, especially in cases of domestic hardship, of some appeal from the hardship tribunals. I had a case pointed out to me in which a married woman had to prepare all the meals for 1Ter husband, who is engaged in war work but is suffering from gastric trouble and is not able to take meals in his works' canteen. She had to rise at six in the morning and prepare his break-fast. She had to prepare his dinner to take with him, and she had to have a meal for him at 11 o'clock at night when he came back from his war work. She herself was on war work. She was not excused by tile hardship tribunal from the duty of fire watching. The Chairman simply said, "How glad you must be to sec your husband." That is the type of case where some appeal ought to be possible. In very many cases the tribunals deal perfectly satisfactorily with claims of domestic hardship, but I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will look into the possibility of some revision of the Regulations, to deal with cases like this.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): I would like to deal briefly with the points that have been raised, and at a little greater length with the question of the relaxation of fire watching, because it is rather useful that the public should know about that matter, in connection with the new Orders. I should like to take the speeches one by one and answer the questions which were raised.
First there was the speech by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys

Davies), who has apologised for having to go but who asked me to reply to his questions. He raised the question of conscientious objectors and those who refused to register. The position is that Parliament has not recognised any conscientious objection to fire guarding—which is a term I prefer to "fire watching "—as it has done to military service. Parliament has always taken the view that though it may recognise conscientious objection to the taking of life, that is a very different thing from conscientious objection to the saving of life.
But there are a number of people who have refused to register for fire guard duty. I must say that I have never yet met a conscientious objector who refused to register for his ration card, although ration cards are an integral part of the war machine. The Secretary of State is, however, most anxious that there should not be any cases, so far as he can avoid them, of what used to be known as "cat and mouse" procedure. Therefore he has taken the view that where a person is willing to do the job—that is, is willing to guard and save life and put out fires but is not willing to register—then after his first conviction he shall be deemed to have registered so that as long as he goes on doing fire-guard duties he cannot again be prosecuted. May I say, however, that this does not mean, as some conscientious objectors seem to think, that they can just go and do fire-guard duty when they feel inclined. It means that they have got to go on the rota and do the job properly. It would be absurd to prosecute a man who is doing the job.
Unfortunately, however, there are a few marginal cases, such as those to which the hon. Member for Westhoughton referred, where offences took place under the old Orders and convictions are taking place now. The difficulty is that the Ministry of Home Security is not the prosecuting authority in the sense that the Ministry of Labour is in offences of failure to register under Ministry of Labour Orders. All we can do therefore in such cases—and I want to say this very definitely on behalf of the Home Secretary—is to ask the local authorities not to prosecute again, but to work on the basis that if a man has been convicted once he shall be deemed to have registered. We cannot interfere with the


rights of local authorities if they wish to prosecute for offences committed under the old Orders.
Then I come to the question raised by the hon. Member who wanted me to say, I think, that women should go to shelters when bombs fall. I would like to ask him what would have happened in the blitz if all women had gone to shelters. We all remember that magnificent work was done by women who drove ambulances. If they had not done that work, we should not have been able to get casualties to hospital. Women nurses also helped in the casualty stations. If all these women had gone to shelter, what would have happened? Then there are thousands of women wardens. Is it suggested that they should go to shelter when bombs are falling?

Mr. Salt: May I say that I was only referring to the centres of great towns and the bombing there, and that I had in mind also a blitz comparable with the attacks we are delivering in Germany? If they were killed, as they might be, these women would not be much use. It would be much better that they should go to shelter. I am quite conscious of the bravery and heroism of the women to whom the hon. Lady refers.

Miss Wilkinson: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the job of fire guards is to deal with incendiary bombs. If they go to shelter and leave the bombs burning, what is the use of their coming out and surveying the ruins? The hon. Member asked what they should do. Under the fire guard plan there is a scheme of training, and fire guards when they have gone through that training know exactly what they have to do. We, of course, have had no experience of a Cologne or Dusseldorf raid or anything like that, and please God we shall not, but we have had, experience of very severe raids in our cities where there has been something approaching this plan in operation. If I may allude to Exeter as an example, an interesting thing is that many women fire guards were on duty that night and when we came to look into figures—and I know that percentages can be misleading—the percentage of fire guards killed was actually less than the percentage of the public. The reason was not that they were in shelters but that

they knew what to do and how to protect themselves while they were protecting others. That is the whole point about training and why we say we do not want to have well intentioned people flocking about in a raid, but well-trained people who know what they have to do. I could just add speaking to the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) that really the women cannot have it both ways. The claim was made that we should not use women until all the men available were doing their full 48 hours a month—[Interruption].
Coming to the point of hard cases we can only deal with these through the hardships tribunals. The Minister of Labour has been very generous in letting us use these tribunals, but if you are to set them up you cannot have continuous interference by different Ministers because no tribunal would serve under those circumstances. You can only lay down certain guiding principles, although where tribunals seem to ignore relevant facts we can arrange Sometimes for a separate hearing.
I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. M. Hughes) agrees with me about the Explanatory Memorandum because it is a very much better document than hon. Gentlemen who have not read it seem to think. It really surprises me that Members of Parliament who are used to dealing with large documents should faint at the sight of 60 or 70 pages. If Members of Parliament will only read it or keep it by them, they will find it a Godsend. I know it is hardly possible to increase the respect which constituents already feel for hon. Members, but it does add to his prestige if a Member is able to give an immediate answer to one of these fire guard problems. If he will turn to the page where it is excellently laid out, he win be able to give many answers which otherwise would mean a letter to the Home
Office.
May I deal with another point of the hon. Member with regard to the exemption of other Government Departments? What he says is perfectly true on the letter of the law. It is not possible for one Department to compel another Department to do anything, but we can come to agreements. What we have done is this: All the Government Departments who are appropriate authorities are represented on what we call our Fire Preven-


tion (Operational) Committee, of which I am Chairman, and we come to an agreement on all these matters. I can assure my hon. Friend that there are no islands in our sectors. The sector is, of course, a section into which a fawn is divided for the purpose of fire guarding. If a Government Department is in a block, that Department comes in by agreement of his own department on the Operations Committee. If there are any local difficulties—we may have some local official who tries to stand on the letter of the law and will not come in—that is reported to his Regional authority, and the matter is put right at once.

Mr. Hughes: Are there any cases where Service Departments, including Service personnel at establishments within the sector, come within the control of the sector scheme?

Miss Wilkinson: There is a difficulty with the War Office alone which is in a somewhat special position. The Admiralty, the Ministry of Aircraft Production and the Departments generally have all come in. Those Departments are appropriate authorities. The War Office, in that sense, is not. Therefore, special arrangements have to be made for dealing with their particular problems. But the hon. Member said that no other Government Department comes in. All the Government Departments that are appropriate authorities come in; and it works out all right.
The other point is the question of the block schemes in the three great trading estates. I have promised my hon. Friend to go into this matter in detail, and I have had consultation with the officials in the Ministry of Aircraft Production responsible for it. We have gone into the finances in detail, and we find that not all of the expenses being paid this year are recurrent. Some of the expenses which had to be shared out came into the category of capital expenditure. The price per foot for fire prevention will not be as high, therefore, as it has been in the previous year. But even those three trading estates are not unique. We find that in many business premises they like these block schemes, and that under these schemes they work more efficiently, both in man-power and in organisation, than if they were left to run their own shows.
But it means a little more expense: that has to be faced. I think those are all the points which were raised by hon. Members, except the point raised by the hon. Member for South Croydon—

Mr. Hughes: May I remind my hon. Friend of the point I raised, regarding penalties?

Miss Wilkinson: I am sorry. I have that down. With regard to enforcement, we cannot put down a detailed list of all the possible offences you could commit on fire guard duty. You have to leave these matters to the courts. Part 5 of the Defence Regulations works reasonably adequately. In every human situation there is somebody who does something he should not do, or who makes an idiotic decision—that cannot be avoided—but, on the whole, the thing works all right. In fact, I have never heard that anyone has got the same penalty for, say, filling up a form wrongly as for contumaciously refusing to do fire guard duty. I think that my hon. and learned Friend, in his legal capacity, would probably agree.
Under the new Order we have had considerable consultation on the Fire Prevention (Operational) Committee, with the Government Departments concerned, and we have all come to the view that under the new Orders we should aim at securing the fullest practicable relaxation except in those areas and premises where it is essential to maintain the full standard. I will, therefore, just give the hon. Member for South Croydon the actual details of what will be done. By night—that is, from half an hour before black-out to half an hour after black-out —the appropriate authority or Department may reduce the number of fire guards available at places or premises or on call, but at least one must be available. Where arrangements for premises provide that fire guards need only be on call, the appropriate authority may authorise that no person need be on call.
The appropriate authorities for business premises—other than local authorities and appropriate Departments for Government premises—may also authorise the relaxation of the "wakeful watch." That is, the people should be there, but they need not be awake. Where the appropriate authority is the local authority, the


Regional Commissioner may authorise the relaxation of the wakeful watch, and in the street fire party areas he may either relax the "wakeful watch" altogether or group street fire party areas and direct that only one fire guard need be awake in the group. I should emphasise that these relaxations are permissive and depend upon the judgment of the appropriate authority or of the Regional Commissioners. In daylight—and here the problem is the week-end—in most departments people are there during the day, and fire guard duty is done automatically along with the rest, The appropriate authority or appropriate department may, however, dispense altogether with fire guards available or on call at business or Government premises.
It should be understood in all cases that if circumstances change, relaxations authorised under the Order may be withdrawn or curtailed, but full rotas must be maintained so that, if required, the fire guards concerned may know the times when they are required to be available at the premises or are liable to be called to the premises. On what principle will this be done? These are the factors which will have to be taken into account—the vulnerability of the area, the frequency of raiding in the area, fire hazards at particular premises, the importance to the war effort of the work carried on at the premises, the historic or national importance of the premises (such as some cathedral or some very historic place) and to some extent, local feeling about the importance of fire guard measures. Everybody just hates fire guard duty anyway, but in many areas it is felt to be a real protection.
You may ask, How and on what basis are Regional Commissioners and appropriate authorities going to decide that

these factors should come into operation? I am afraid that I cannot be explicit. I can only say that Regional Commissioners and local authorities are being advised confidentially about vulnerability and difficult areas, and on that we must take expert opinion. At particular premises some degree of relaxation of the manning provisions of the Orders (but not those relating to the "wakeful watch") may be justified where the workers live near the premises and can reach them within three minutes of the sounding of the alert or the opening of anti-aircraft fire. There is less risk of incendiary attack by day than by night at the moment, but we cannot do our duty by the country and relax altogether. We cannot, for example, have relaxation in areas like London and the South and in areas where at any moment, as we have learned from bitter experience after weeks of lull, the raiding may start again. We can only ask the House in this matter to trust the Department concerned to have all the information available. We only can say in these matters that it is a difficult job, and we will just do our best, and I thank the House for having been so reasonable.

Sir H. Williams: I wish to thank the Home Secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary for the important statements that have been made, and I now beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.